Peltola campaign's alleged Dan Sullivan spoiler plot takes new turn as DOJ faces major legal hurdle

Alaska’s Senate Race Stalled by DOJ Lawsuit Over Two Dan Sullivans

June 2024 – In the run‑up to the November 5 election, the U.S. Justice Department has filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Alaska seeking to delay the certification of the Senate race because two candidates with almost identical names appear on the same ballot. The lawsuit, filed two weeks before Election Day, argues that the presence of both Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher, could have confused voters enough to alter the outcome if the former lost. The case has ignited a debate over ballot design, ranked‑choice voting, and the limits of federal intervention in state elections.

The Complaint

The DOJ’s complaint, which was filed on October 10, alleges that if Senator Dan Sullivan were to lose the election, the votes cast for the other Daniel J. Sullivan could have changed the result. The agency is asking the court to halt the certification of the election until it can investigate whether voters mistakenly selected the wrong candidate.

“The federal law cited by the DOJ governs voter registration, not candidate eligibility or ballot design,” the complaint says, a point that the Democratic campaign has used to argue for dismissal.

The complaint references a controversy in which the Alaska Division of Elections initially disqualified Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy in 2023, ruling that he had not made a genuine, good‑faith bid for office but had been put on the ballot to sow confusion. That decision was overturned in June by Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews, who held that the Division had no authority to void a candidacy on those grounds.

On the ballot, the incumbent is listed as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and marked with the Republican party affiliation. The other candidate appears as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” and carries no party label. Some state officials argue that the difference in the middle initial and the absence of a party designation should be enough to prevent voter confusion.

A Democratic Campaign’s Role

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the Mary Peltola campaign, the Democrat running against Sullivan, “worked with operatives to recruit” Daniel J. Sullivan to run for the Senate seat in an effort to exploit the name similarity. The Times cited interviews, text messages and documents that were allegedly prepared for a possible lawsuit. Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have denied any involvement.

In response, the Democratic side filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit on Sunday. The motion argues that the federal law cited in the DOJ complaint deals with voter registration, not with candidate eligibility or ballot design, and urges the court to resolve the matter before Election Day.

Legal and Expert Reactions

The lawsuit has drawn comments from legal scholars and election experts on both sides of the aisle. Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller told reporters that “inferring voter intentions from anonymous ballots is just impossible to measure after the fact.”

Alaska Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has overseen the DOJ’s case, said that the agency could use ranked‑choice voting data to look for signs of confusion. “Because of rank-based voting, voters… write not just one, not just two, but multiple names on the ballot,” Blanche told CNN’s Dana Bash. “And so there are a number of scenarios where it could be obvious that a voter was confused by the way they wrote down candidates.” In a later interview with CBS, Blanche added, “It will be obvious from the results and from the ballots that voters were confused, and that could be obvious from the way that they rank the Dan Sullivans or not including a Dan Sullivan on the ballot.”

Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Don Palmer cautioned that the DOJ would need more than statistical analysis to prove its case. “You’ll have the opportunity to interview witnesses, do some statistical analysis, and make a decision whether or not the campaign wants to contest the results of the election,” Palmer said. “So it’s actually quite a high standard where you have to bring in witnesses. You can’t generally just prove it with some statistical analysis…”

A spokesperson for the America First Policy Institute pointed to voting patterns that could indicate confusion. “If voters voted for the non‑Republican Dan Sullivan as their first choice, but voted down the ballot for Republicans as their first choice otherwise, that could indicate patterns of confusion,” the spokesman said.

On the other side, Ben Hovland of the Center for American Progress expressed skepticism about the DOJ’s chances. “You’ve never seen a claim like this made under the National Voter Registration Act,” Hovland told Fox News Digital. “This is not a matter of federal law. This is a state ballot qualification issue, and the Alaska Supreme Court addressed this issue months ago.” He added that the DOJ’s action could be viewed as an attempt to “sow doubt or set the stage to undermine the results of the election if the administration doesn’t like what the voters will have to say.”

Walter Olson, a senior legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, agreed that the case would likely falter. “I don’t expect the local allies of the AG to get very far in this effort unless a federal court rules in favor of his theory that Alaska violated federal (as opposed to state) law by letting the schoolteacher stay on the ballot,” Olson told Fox News Digital. “I think the state is likely to beat him in federal court on that point, and that should end the case.”

The Broader Stakes

Alaska has long been a Republican‑leaning state, but the Senate race this year could carry national implications as the GOP seeks to defend its narrow majority in the chamber. A delay or reversal of the result would therefore have ripple effects beyond the state’s borders.

The lawsuit also highlights the challenges of Alaska’s unique voting system. The state uses ranked‑choice voting for the first time in a statewide election, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Some officials argue that this system mitigates the risk of confusion because voters can still indicate a preference for the incumbent even if they mis‑type a name. Others say that the presence of two identical names on the ballot could still produce misleading first‑choice tallies.

Current Status

Alaska has moved to have the DOJ’s lawsuit dismissed, and the court has not yet ruled. The DOJ has not responded to a request for comment from Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

If the court sides with the DOJ, the election results could be certified only after a federal investigation into voter confusion. If the motion to dismiss is granted, certification could proceed as scheduled on November 5. Either outcome will be closely watched, as the Senate’s composition could shift depending on the result