The Justice Department has sued to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate result if incumbent Dan S. Sullivan loses and votes for a same-named challenger could have changed the outcome.
How two Sullivans reached the ballot
The lawsuit follows months of dispute over Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired teacher from Petersburg who ran against the Republican senator. Alaska election officials first removed him from the ballot, saying he had not filed a genuine candidacy and might confuse voters. He sued, and state courts ruled that officials could not add a subjective “good faith” test to the legal requirements. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld his right to run.
Both men advanced from the August primary, along with Democrat Mary Peltola and Republican Gerald Heikes. Peltola received 49.5% of the vote, incumbent Dan S. Sullivan received 41.4%, and Daniel J. Sullivan received 2.5%. The November ballot identifies the incumbent as “Dan S. Sullivan,” a Republican and the incumbent; the other man is listed as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” with no party label. In Alaska’s ranked-choice system, voters can rank more than one candidate, and votes can transfer to voters’ next choices if a candidate is eliminated.
What the DOJ wants the court to do
The DOJ argues that voters who support the senator could mistakenly choose his namesake. It asks that, if Dan S. Sullivan loses but would have won if every vote for Daniel J. Sullivan had instead gone to the senator and the ranked-choice count had been recalculated, Alaska not certify the result until an investigation examines voters’ intent. This is the government’s allegation and requested remedy, not evidence of voter confusion or a finding that ballots were mistakenly cast.
The investigation could be difficult: ballots are secret, so officials cannot simply trace a ballot to its voter and ask whether the choice was intentional. The complaint does not explain how investigators could reliably distinguish a mistaken vote from a deliberate vote for the challenger. The ballot uses different names, and ranked-choice voting lets voters rank both men. Whether the risk is real and the remedy can respect ballot secrecy are key questions for the court.
The dispute over politics and legal authority
Daniel J. Sullivan has denied being a Democratic plant and said he ran because he was dissatisfied with the senator’s record. President Donald Trump, who endorsed the incumbent, has repeatedly described the challenger as a Democratic effort to siphon votes. On Friday, Trump said he personally directed the DOJ to file the lawsuit. The Senate race is among those that could help decide control of the chamber.
The Constitution gives states initial responsibility for setting rules for congressional elections, while allowing Congress—not the president acting alone—to change those rules through federal law. The DOJ cites the National Voter Registration Act, which lists protecting election integrity among its purposes and lets the attorney general seek court orders needed to carry out the law. But the law mainly concerns voter registration, not candidate names or certification of winners. Critics, including Notre Dame election-law professor Derek Muller, argue that a statement of purpose alone cannot create power to block certification. The judge must decide whether Alaska violated a specific legal duty and whether the remedy fits the law.
What happens before certification
The lawsuit could disrupt Alaska’s vote-counting and certification work or leave the winner’s status uncertain. A ruling for the DOJ could encourage similar efforts to pause certification based on alleged confusion without evidence of mistaken votes. A ruling against it would narrow this legal theory but would not prevent federal challenges under other laws or based on proven violations.
As of Oct. 24, the public docket showed that the complaint was filed on Oct. 22 and that no court ruling had been issued. U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason could still issue an order before Alaska’s certification process reaches the Senate result. Filing the lawsuit does not itself stop certification; the DOJ needs a judge to grant its request. Any order and appeal could shape how far federal officials can go in challenging a state’s handling of a congressional election.