Alaska election officials oppose Trump DOJ’s involvement in Senate race

Alaska Officials Maintain Election Position Amid Senate Ballot Dispute

Earthguardiansonline.com – Alaska election authorities say newly publicized details surrounding a second Senate candidate named Dan Sullivan have not altered the state’s legal position in a federal case involving the upcoming election.

The dispute centers on Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher whose name closely resembles that of Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, the incumbent seeking another term. State officials had expressed concerns when Daniel J. Sullivan entered the race, but the Alaska Supreme Court has already ruled that he may remain on the ballot.

Sam Curtis, a spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law, said the state remains committed to administering the election under that ruling, regardless of allegations about efforts to encourage Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy.

“Placing candidates on the ballot is a matter of state law, not federal law.”

Curtis said the federal statute cited by the Justice Department does not determine who may run for office and does not provide the authority for the remedy federal officials are seeking. The Trump administration’s lawsuit could potentially affect the timing of election certification, a process normally handled under state election law.

“The Division is bound by the Alaska Supreme Court’s order and is committed to running a fair election and assisting voters as needed.”

A High-Stakes Race Nears Election Day

The controversy has intensified with less than a week remaining before Election Day in one of the nation’s closely watched Senate contests. Mary Peltola, Alaska’s former at-large House member, is viewed as a major Democratic recruit, while her campaign continues to reject any connection to Daniel J. Sullivan’s effort.

Republicans have treated the contest as a priority. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance have both traveled to Alaska in recent weeks, underscoring the party’s concern about the race. Trump has repeatedly criticized the presence of two candidates with the Sullivan name and said last week that he directed the Justice Department to pursue its lawsuit.

Following the new allegations, Trump posted several messages attacking Peltola and calling for action against both her and Daniel J. Sullivan.

“So should the FAKE Dan Sullivan. Nothing else will do!”

The incumbent senator’s campaign accused Peltola of misleading voters for months. Speaking on Fox News with Sean Hannity, Sullivan urged his opponent to address the allegations directly.

“I am pressing my opponent to come clean. She’s been lying for over a year. She’s run a campaign about supposed corruption. She’s the corrupt one working with DC insiders to trick Alaskans.”

Sullivan said his campaign would work to ensure voters across the state were aware of the issue before ballots are cast.

Justice Department Seeks More Information

Attorney General Todd Blanche argued that the newly revealed information supported the Justice Department’s decision to bring an unusual federal case involving a state-run election. However, when questioned about whether any illegal conduct had occurred that would give the department power to intervene, he did not identify a specific violation.

Federal prosecutors told a judge that they want additional answers and evidence from Peltola’s campaign related to the second Sullivan candidate. The department described the alleged effort as a conspiracy.

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, also announced that he had ordered an investigation into whether the alleged actions could warrant criminal charges or civil proceedings. His statement focused on the possibility that voters may have been deliberately confused by the similar names on the ballot.

“Deliberately tricking voters into casting their ballots for someone else strikes at the integrity of our elections. Anyone or any organization found to have broken the law must be held accountable.”

Ballot Strategy and Election Law Questions

The situation raises familiar questions about campaign strategy, ballot access and voter perception. Similar-name candidates can create confusion, particularly when voters encounter a lengthy ballot or possess limited information about lesser-known contenders. Yet concerns about a candidate’s motives or the motives of people supporting that candidate do not automatically decide whether the candidate can legally appear on the ballot.

Election law specialist Rick Hasen said campaigns and political groups routinely seek advantages by boosting candidates who could draw support away from a major opponent. Republicans, too, have been involved in efforts aimed at strengthening potential spoiler candidates in this contest. GOP-affiliated groups contributed to a super PAC that criticized Peltola during the primary while promoting a lesser-known Democratic candidate and a Green Party candidate.

“This is basically a more extreme version of what the parties do all the time, which is try to find a candidate on the other side who can siphon votes away from the major party competitor.”

Hasen added that political motivation alone may not establish legal responsibility.

Franita Tolson, dean of the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, said the allegations do not make the Justice Department’s challenge more persuasive. Her view reflects the broader legal tension in the case: states generally control ballot administration and certification, while federal involvement is limited by statute and constitutional boundaries.

“At the end of the day, the federal government should not try to block certification of a race because they don’t like the outcome.”

For Alaska voters, the immediate practical issue is straightforward: the ballot will include both Dan S. Sullivan and Daniel J. Sullivan unless a court order changes that outcome. State officials say they will continue to assist voters and conduct the election fairly while the legal and political arguments continue.