Justice Department lawyers face a steep proof test to block Alaska Senate certification over two Dan Sullivans on the ballot after reports of a Peltola-linked spoiler effort.
The Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit roughly two weeks before Alaska’s Oct. 22 Election Day. The suit seeks to delay certification of the Senate results if Sen. Dan Sullivan loses and votes cast for another candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan could have changed the outcome, pending an investigation into mistaken selections.
Two men with nearly identical names sit on the same ranked-choice ballot. Incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan appears as “Sullivan, Dan S.,” with Republican and incumbent labels. Retired schoolteacher Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. appears as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.,” with no party affiliation.
That setup now sits at the center of a federal fight over voter confusion, state ballot rules, and how much proof a court needs before it holds up election certification.
The Alaska Division of Elections initially disqualified the schoolteacher. Officials found his candidacy was not a genuine, good-faith bid for office and was designed to confuse voters into mistaking him for the senator.
In June, Alaska Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews overturned that decision. He held the Division of Elections had no authority to void a candidacy on that basis. The second Sullivan stayed on the ballot.
The Washington Examiner reported the second Dan Sullivan took 2.5% in the primaries. Republicans see the Alaska race as one that could decide control of a narrow Senate majority, with Democrat Mary Peltola challenging the incumbent.
The New York Times reported that Peltola’s campaign worked with operatives to recruit another Dan Sullivan, hoping voter confusion would pull support from the incumbent. The Times cited interviews, text messages, and documents prepared for a potential lawsuit. It also reported the effort targeted other potential spoiler candidates.
Peltola’s campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in the second Sullivan’s candidacy.
That disputed account is the backdrop for the Justice Department’s move into federal court.
Attorney General Todd Blanche has argued ranked-choice ballots can reveal confusion. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Blanche said voters write multiple names, not just one.
Blanche told CNN:
"So, because of rank-based voting, voters... they write not just one, not just two, but multiple names on the ballot. 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 that confusion “could be obvious from the way that they rank the Dan Sullivans or not including a Dan Sullivan on the ballot.”
A spokesman for the America First Policy Institute offered a similar theory. If voters picked the non-Republican Dan Sullivan first, but otherwise ranked Republicans first down the ballot, that pattern could signal straight-ticket Republican voters thrown off by the extra name.
The Justice Department has not explained how those patterns would prove any individual voter picked the wrong man. Voter privacy rules remain a major barrier to matching specific people to specific ballots.
On Sunday, Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee filed a proposed motion to dismiss. They argued the federal law cited by the Justice Department governs voter registration, not candidate eligibility or ballot design. They urged the court to resolve the case before Election Day.
Alaska has also moved to dismiss the Justice Department’s case. The department did not respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment on Tuesday.
Fox News interviewed Don Palmer, senior legal fellow for election integrity at the Heritage Foundation, on what the Justice Department must show.
Palmer said a campaign that wants to contest results would get a chance to gather evidence after the election.
"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,"
He stressed the standard is high. Statistical analysis alone will not do it.
"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... the campaign would have to show to the court through statistical and expert testimony, plus witness testimony, plus affidavits, that enough voters were confused, that they made inaccurate choices on what they intended to do. Then and only then could the court determine whether the race should be overturned."
Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller was blunt about trying to read intent from anonymous ballots after the fact.
"This is just the stuff that is just impossible to measure after the fact,"
Ben Hovland, a senior fellow at the left-of-center Center for American Progress, told Fox News Digital the claim is novel under the National Voter Registration Act.
"You've never seen a claim like this made under the National Voter Registration Act,"
Hovland said the dispute is a state ballot qualification issue already addressed by the Alaska Supreme Court months ago. He argued the Justice Department has no realistic path to win and framed the filing as an effort to sow doubt if the administration dislikes the result.
Walter Olson, senior legal fellow at the Cato Institute, said local allies of Blanche are unlikely to get far unless a federal court accepts the theory that Alaska violated federal law by keeping the schoolteacher on the ballot.
"I think the state is likely to beat Blanche in federal court on that point, and that should end the case."
Palmer left the door open to a properly built case with witnesses, experts, and affidavits. Hovland and Olson see a weak federal hook. Muller doubts the evidence can be measured at all. Those views sit side by side in the record.
Ballot design that invites name confusion is not a victimless quirk. If operatives shopped for a spoiler Sullivan to siphon Republican votes, voters deserve a clean count, and courts should insist on real proof before anyone rewrites the certified result.
