The Alaska Supreme Court heard arguments about election workers providing lists of write-in candidates to voters for about 90 minutes Friday morning. Attorneys representing the Alaska Democratic and Republican parties argued against attorneys representing the state Division of Elections and the campaign of U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

The attorneys representing the Alaska Democratic and Republican parties expect the Supreme Court to issue some kind of decision Friday afternoon.

Because of the unusual nature of this year's Senate race, the issue of write-in lists has taken center stage in the week leading up to Election Day. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski is running as a write-in candidate against Republican Joe Miller and Democrat Scott McAdams after losing the GOP primary to Miller.

The justices probed the attorneys with hypothetical questions like what kind of question would prompt an election worker to give a voter the list of write-in candidates, or whether the Division of Elections would be able to mark the ballots of voters who requested the list.

The Alaska Democratic Party filed a suit against the Division of Elections Monday morning seeking to prohibit election workers from providing voters who ask with lists of write-in candidates. The Alaska Republican Party joined the suit the same day. The state Superior Court ruled in favor of the Democratic and Republican Parties, but the Division of Elections asked the Alaska Supreme Court to review the decision.

Back in mid-October there were only two names on the list of Senate write-in candidates. But on Thursday afternoon a horde of politically-minded citizens, spurred on by conservative talk show host Dan Fagan, arrived at the Division of Elections to register as write-in candidates. There are now about 150 names on the list.

Kenneth Kirk, the attorney representing the Republican Party, said after the arguments that the issue at hand is how much assistance election workers can give voters.

"Are there limits on that?" asked Kirk, referring to voter assistance. "Clearly. What are the limits on that assistance? That's the question."

Scott Kendall, the attorney representing the Murkowski campaign, said the case hinges on whether information, which the Division of Elections says cannot be provided at the polling place, refers to persuasive information. The argument advanced by Kendall and the Division of Elections is that a write-in candidate's name is not "information" so election workers should be able to provide a list of those candidates to voters who ask.

"The Division of Elections doesn't believe the list is persuasive information," said Margaret Paton-Walsh, a Department of Law attorney representing the Division of Elections, during her rebuttal. "I urge you to overturn this restraining order and let the agency do its job."

Kirk, the Republican Party attorney, said he thought the arguments went well and that he was hopeful the justices would rule in his client's favor, but that it's very difficult to predict which way the justices would rule because they keep their cards very close to their chest.

"I sure wouldn't bet my own money on it," Kirk said.

Contact Joshua Saul at jsaul(at)alaskadispatch.com.