The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to stop the state of Alaska from certifying the results of its U.S. Senate election if the Republican incumbent loses, in an extraordinary pre-election legal move that could delay the outcome of a contest that may decide control of the Senate.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Anchorage, centers on the fact that two candidates with nearly identical names will appear on Alaska’s ballot: incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan and a challenger named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.
What the lawsuit actually asks for
The 14-page complaint, United States v. Alaska, does not itself block anything — it is a request for court intervention, not a ruling. It asks a federal judge to prevent Alaska from certifying any Senate result “that may be impacted by voter confusion,” pending an investigation into whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were intended for Senator Sullivan.
The government’s proposed trigger is specific: Senator Sullivan fails to win, but would have won if all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan had instead gone to the incumbent and the ranked-choice count had proceeded accordingly. The lawsuit invokes the National Voter Registration Act’s requirement that states protect the integrity of federal elections.
A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is taking “necessary steps to ensure that this frivolous candidacy does not undermine the integrity of Alaska’s election or the will of its voters.”
Two Sullivans, one ballot
The name at the center of the case belongs to a retired schoolteacher from the fishing community of Petersburg, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., who is running without a party designation. The incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan, has held the seat since 2015 and will be listed on the ballot as the Republican incumbent.
The lawsuit alleges that Daniel J. Sullivan decided to run “with the intention of misleading supporters of Senator Sullivan into voting for him,” that he changed his voter registration between the primary and general elections, and that his campaign website uses a format, color scheme and theme similar to the incumbent’s campaign site. It claims “the sole purpose of his candidacy is to benefit” the campaign of Democrat Mary Peltola.
The challenger has said his candidacy is his own initiative. Separately, Carol Beecher, the director of Alaska’s division of elections, determined on June 15 that Daniel J. Sullivan had not declared a “good-faith candidacy” and instead “filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead” voters. The Alaska Supreme Court previously rejected Republican efforts to remove him from the ballot, so he will appear on it — without a party label — in the November 3 election. Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank both candidates.
A race that could decide Senate control
Senator Dan S. Sullivan is running a closely contested race against Democrat Mary Peltola, a former state representative. With little reliable polling in the state, analysts count Alaska among roughly 10 battleground races that will determine control of the U.S. Senate: Democrats need to gain a net four seats on November 3 to take the majority.
President Donald Trump publicly took credit for the lawsuit on Friday, telling reporters in Florida: “I’m the one that said do it.” Earlier in the week he said in a social-media post that his administration was examining “powerful legal options” to get Daniel J. Sullivan off the ballot, calling the situation “totally confusing.”
The case fits a broader pattern: the Trump administration has taken an increasingly aggressive posture toward election oversight, pressing states for voter-registration data and arguing that stricter measures are needed to ensure public confidence. Critics, including Democratic and some Republican election officials, view the moves as federal overreach into what the Constitution largely leaves to the states.
Experts question the legal theory
Election law experts were skeptical of the lawsuit’s chances. Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame, described the underlying legal theory as “strange and unusual,” noting that it is unclear how a court could intervene in the way the Justice Department proposes.
No judge had granted the requested relief at the time of reporting. The Justice Department’s filing is an allegation about a candidate’s intentions — not a court finding that Daniel J. Sullivan acted fraudulently or that any votes are invalid.
Whether a federal court will entertain a preemptive bid to hold up certification of an election the administration’s party might lose remains to be seen. The next development to watch: a judge’s ruling on whether Alaska’s certification process can proceed on schedule after November 3.