The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to prevent Alaska from certifying a U.S. Senate result if votes for a second candidate named Sullivan could affect the outcome of Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan’s reelection race.
The complaint, filed Oct. 22 in the U.S. District Court for Alaska, targets the state, its election director and the boards responsible for counting and reviewing ballots. It argues that Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy was intended to confuse voters and benefit Democrat Mary Peltola.
Those assertions are allegations, not judicial findings. The relief sought is also conditional: the department asks the court to intervene if the number of votes for Daniel J. Sullivan is large enough that they could change the certified result.
The filing opens an unusual federal-state dispute just days before the Nov. 3 election. It also raises a basic legal question that the court has not resolved: whether the federal voter-registration law cited by the government gives the attorney general authority to stop certification over alleged candidate-name confusion.
Two Sullivans remain on the ballot
Alaska’s official candidate list identifies the incumbent as Dan S. Sullivan, a registered Republican, and the challenger as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., also a registered Republican. Mary Peltola, a registered Democrat, and Gerald L. Heikes, a registered Republican, round out the four-candidate Senate field.
The state uses ranked-choice voting in the general election. Voters may rank the candidates, and a voter’s next choice can be counted if the first choice is eliminated. That system makes assumptions about voter intent especially complicated: a ballot is not limited to a single selection, and voters can rank both Sullivan candidates if they choose.
The Justice Department complaint cites the August primary, in which it says Peltola received 49.5% of first-choice votes, Sen. Sullivan received 41.4%, Daniel J. Sullivan received 2.5% and Heikes received 1.1%.
Before the primary, Alaska election officials investigated whether Daniel J. Sullivan had filed a good-faith candidacy. The Division of Elections initially concluded that the evidence did not support his eligibility, citing concerns that the filing was intended to confuse voters. State litigation followed, and the Alaska Supreme Court ultimately allowed him to remain on the ballot.
The federal complaint asks for a different remedy. Rather than removing a candidate, it asks the court to order an investigation after votes are cast into whether ballots marked for Daniel J. Sullivan were actually intended for the incumbent.
The federal law at issue
The Justice Department relies on the National Voter Registration Act. Its complaint quotes the law’s purpose of ensuring that accurate and current voter-registration rolls are maintained and invokes the attorney general’s enforcement authority.
But the case is not about an allegedly inaccurate voter-registration roll. It is about candidate identity, ballot design and the certification of election results. That distinction is likely to be central as Alaska responds.
Election-law professor Derek Muller told The Associated Press that he did not believe the cited statute authorizes a court to enjoin certification in these circumstances. The court will have to decide the scope of the federal law rather than the parties or outside commentators.
President Donald Trump said Friday that he urged the action. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska’s other senator, criticized the lawsuit and said voters are capable of distinguishing between the candidates. Sen. Sullivan’s campaign said it would allow the complaint to run its course. Peltola accused the administration of trying to manipulate the election.
Those sharply different reactions show that the dispute does not fall along a simple party line, even though the lawsuit could directly affect a Republican incumbent in one of the nation’s most competitive Senate races.
What the court could decide
The government’s requested order would not automatically award votes to Sen. Sullivan. It asks for a pause and an investigation if Daniel J. Sullivan’s vote total could be outcome-determinative. The complaint does not explain a clear method for determining which voters intended to select a different candidate while preserving ballot secrecy.
That practical problem matters. Courts are generally reluctant to infer voter intent from a lawfully marked ballot, particularly after election rules and candidate lists have been set. Alaska, meanwhile, has an interest in certifying results on schedule under the system approved for the election.
The next steps will include the state’s response and any request for accelerated consideration before certification. Until the court acts, both Sullivan candidates remain on the official list, early voting is underway, and the Nov. 3 election will proceed under Alaska’s ranked-choice rules.
Sources
- United States v. State of Alaska complaint
- Alaska Division of Elections official 2026 general-election candidate list
- Alaska Division of Elections sample-ballot and ranked-choice instructions
- Alaska court media page for the Daniel J. Sullivan eligibility litigation
- Associated Press report on the federal lawsuit and reactions