This article examines the role of reviewer agreement in judgments about alignment between tests and standards. We used case data from three state alignment studies to explore how different approaches to incorporating reviewer agreement changes alignment conclusions. The three case studies showed varying degrees of reviewer agreement about correspondences between objectives and test items. Moreover, taking into account reviewer agreement in the analyses sometimes had a marked effect on alignment conclusions. We discuss reasons for differences across case studies and alignment approaches, as well as implications for future alignment efforts.