Todd Blanche challenges Dana Bash for only citing part of Constitution during heated election clash

Maine Attorney General Todd Blanche took to CNN’s “State of the Union” program on Sunday to protest what he called an incomplete presentation of the U.S. Constitution’s election provisions. While host Dana Bash displayed a screen with the first line of Article I, Section 4 – the clause that gives state legislatures authority over congressional elections – Blanche demanded the network also show the second half, which grants Congress the power to enact or amend those regulations.

“Conveniently, you put up the Constitution on your screen, but you highlighted only the first clause. Why don’t you show the next clause to your viewers, which says that Congress is allowed to pass laws to make sure that that happens? Put that back up there,” Blanche told Bash. He added that the second clause, according to the Justice Department (DoJ), backs the agency’s lawsuit filed earlier that week.

The exchange was triggered by the DoJ’s legal action against a candidate in Alaska’s 2026 Senate race. The suit, based on the National Voter Registration Act, seeks to prevent the certification of the election if votes for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.—a retired teacher from Petersburg who shares the name of incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan—could affect the final outcome. The DoJ alleges that Sullivan Jr. purposely used a similar name to mislead voters and undermine election integrity.

The Alaska Supreme Court last June ruled that Sullivan Jr. can remain on the ballot, although it left the precise way his name should appear to the state’s Division of Elections. State election officials have objected, and Republican commentators have argued that the challenger is siphoning support from the sitting senator.

President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters in Florida on Friday, said he had encouraged the DoJ to pursue the lawsuit. “I’m the one that said, do it,” Trump told the press.

Blanche, who has been active on election‑related matters in Maine, has stated that the DoJ’s complaint relies on a federal statute that he believes allows the agency to intervene when a candidate’s presence could distort the vote. “The second clause says that the Congress may at any time by law, and we have a law, and that’s the law that we’re relying on when we filed suit earlier this week,” he said.

The lawsuit has drawn criticism from voting‑rights advocates and from the campaign of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, who has filed a motion to intervene in the case. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that the National Voter Registration Act only sets out voter‑registration procedures and does not grant the power to block election certification over who appears on a ballot.

Media Research Center president David Bozell also took aim at CNN’s presentation. “An anchor who hands viewers half a provision on election integrity is running a magic act, and the trick fell apart on live television,” Bozell said. “Bash’s job is to give the audience the full text up front. CNN owes its dozens of viewers the whole clause, and a better editor.”

The confrontation on CNN came amid a broader debate about the scope of federal authority in elections. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 4, grants state legislatures the primary role in setting election rules, but also permits Congress to modify those rules. The DoJ’s lawsuit, according to Blanche, rests on that congressional power, citing a federal law that the department has invoked in similar cases.

The Alaska case remains a flashpoint. As the election approaches, parties on both sides are preparing for a potential court order that could delay or alter the certification of results if votes for Sullivan Jr. are deemed to have a decisive impact. Whether the court will agree with the DoJ’s argument that a candidate’s name can be so confusing as to threaten election integrity remains to be seen.

For now, the state’s Division of Elections and the court are reviewing how Sullivan’s name will appear, while federal and state officials, voters, and advocacy groups monitor the unfolding legal battle. The broader conversation, sparked in part by the televised confrontation between Blanche and Bash, underscores the continuing tensions over the balance between state and federal oversight in American elections.