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

Alaska officials resist federal push to alter Senate election timeline

Activelifezero.com – Alaska election authorities say recent scrutiny surrounding a second Senate candidate named Dan Sullivan has not changed their position in a federal court fight over the state’s election process. State officials maintain that ballot access is governed by Alaska law and that they remain obligated to carry out an Alaska Supreme Court decision allowing Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, to appear on the ballot.

The dispute arrives less than a week before Election Day in a closely watched Senate contest. Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan is seeking reelection while former Alaska at-large House member Mary Peltola is viewed as a leading Democratic contender. The presence of another candidate with the same name as the incumbent has become a central point of political and legal conflict.

Questions intensified after new details emerged about alleged Democratic efforts to encourage Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy. Alaska Department of Law spokesperson Sam Curtis said the information reinforced election officials’ early reservations about the candidacy but did not alter the state’s response to the Justice Department lawsuit.

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

Curtis said the state Supreme Court had already resolved the immediate ballot question. He also argued that the federal statute invoked by the Justice Department neither determines who may become a candidate nor provides the remedy federal officials are seeking.

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

Federal lawsuit raises questions over election authority

The Trump administration’s case could potentially delay certification of the Senate result, an extraordinary intervention in an election administered by state authorities. President Donald Trump has publicly complained for months about the two-candidate-name issue and said last week that he had directed the Justice Department to bring the lawsuit.

Attorney General Todd Blanche pointed to the newly publicized allegations as support for the federal case. But when asked whether conduct had occurred that was illegal and would permit federal intervention in a state-run election, Blanche did not identify one.

Federal lawyers told a judge Wednesday that they want information and evidence from Peltola’s campaign connected to the allegations and the candidacy of Daniel J. Sullivan. The department characterized the situation as a conspiracy.

The litigation underscores a practical distinction for voters: claims about campaign conduct, candidate recruitment, or voter confusion may be investigated separately from the process of printing ballots, counting votes, and certifying an election. Alaska officials have argued that even serious questions about motives do not automatically transfer ballot decisions to the federal government.

Political pressure grows on Peltola

Peltola’s campaign continues to deny involvement in Daniel J. Sullivan’s campaign. Republicans have treated the issue as a major threat in a race important to control of the Senate. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have both traveled to Alaska in recent weeks.

Trump also used social media to attack Peltola after the allegations surfaced, writing that she should be removed from the ballot and prosecuted. In another post, he wrote that the other Sullivan should face the same outcome.

“So should the FAKE Dan Sullivan,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Nothing else will do!”

The incumbent senator’s campaign accused Peltola of misleading Alaska voters for months. Sullivan pressed her to provide an explanation during an appearance with Sean Hannity.

“I am pressing my opponent to come clean,” Sullivan said. “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. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to make sure every single Alaskan knows about this.”

Late Wednesday, Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy said he had directed an investigation into whether the alleged effort to confuse voters could warrant criminal charges or civil action. His announcement did not resolve whether any law was broken, but it placed additional pressure on those connected to the claims.

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

Candidate strategy and voter confusion

The controversy has revived a familiar concern in competitive elections: candidates with similar names can complicate voting decisions, particularly when voters have limited information. Yet election-law specialists note that political parties frequently attempt to elevate lesser-known opponents or candidates who could draw support from a major rival.

Democrats have pointed to Republican-backed activity in Alaska’s race as well. Several GOP organizations contributed to a super PAC that criticized Peltola in 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,” election-law specialist Rick Hasen said. “And, you know, you can’t really hold someone responsible for impure motives.”

Dean Franita Tolson of the University of Southern California Gould School of Law said the allegations do not make the Justice Department’s effort to halt certification more persuasive. Her concern is that federal officials should not use certification as a tool for contesting an outcome they dislike.

“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,” Tolson said.

For Alaska voters, the immediate task remains straightforward but unusually important: carefully review the ballot, distinguish between candidates with similar names, and seek assistance from election workers if needed. The broader legal battle may continue beyond Election Day, but state officials say their present responsibility is to conduct the vote fairly under the rules already established by Alaska courts.