The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to delay the certification of Alaska’s Senate election results if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan narrowly lost to Democrat Mary Peltola in the Nov. 3 midterm elections.
reason? Another candidate named Dan Sullivan is also on the ballot.
Recommended stories
1 List of itemsend of list
The department alleged in a lawsuit filed Thursday that Sullivan, a second former teacher who is registered as a Republican, is intentionally trying to confuse voters.
The Alaska Supreme Court has already ruled that both candidates can remain on the ballot.
So who are the two Dan Sullivans, and what does this lawsuit mean for the election?
What’s happening in Alaska’s Senate race?
Sen. Sullivan is seeking a third, six-year term in the 2022 race against former congressman Peltola, the first Alaska Native elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Alaska has traditionally voted Republican in presidential elections. President Donald Trump won the state by about 13 percentage points in 2024, but this year’s Senate race looks more competitive.
In the August primary, Mr. Peltola received 49.5% of the vote, compared to Sen. Sullivan’s approximately 41%.
Two other candidates, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and Gerald Hikes, have advanced to the Nov. 3 election.
Who are the two Dan Sullivans?
Dan S. Sullivan was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2014 and re-elected in 2020. He previously served as Attorney General and Secretary of Natural Resources for the State of Alaska.
Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. is a former elementary school teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee from Petersburg, Southeast Alaska.
His participation in the race this year drew accusations from Republicans that he was trying to confuse voters, which he denies.
Alaska state election officials initially disqualified him, but a state court overturned the decision. In June, the Alaska Supreme Court allowed him to remain on the ballot.
The ballot lists the incumbent as “Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) Incumbent,” and the other candidate is listed as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” without a party designation, even though he is registered as a Republican.
Glenn Wright, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Southeast, told Al Jazeera that voters should have no problem recognizing each candidate.
“The ballots make it very, very, very clear who the incumbent Dan Sullivan is,” he said.
But Forrest Neighbors, chair of the political science department at the University of Alaska Anchorage, said similar names could still influence the outcome.
“With the election coming up, if voters seeking re-election to the Senate become confused and inadvertently vote for another candidate named Sullivan, it could sway the election significantly,” he told Al Jazeera.
Why did the Department of Justice file the lawsuit?
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Alaska in federal court Thursday, arguing that having two candidates with similar names could mislead voters.
The state wants to withhold certifying the results if Republican senators lose by fewer votes than their namesake, pending an investigation into possible voter confusion and whether voters mistakenly supported the wrong Sullivan.
The lawsuit cited the National Voter Registration Act, the federal law governing voter registration.
Nabors said while calling the Justice Department’s intervention “unusual,” there may be circumstances where federal action is warranted.
“It’s probably not unreasonable,” he said, adding that federal intervention could be justified if the election was conducted unfairly.
“Whether voters get confused and vote incorrectly is a difficult question to measure,” he added.
But Mr. Wright had no doubts about the basis of the lawsuit.
“This legal filing, as you know, is either a filing in bad faith or a filing that misunderstands how Alaska’s election system operates,” he said.
How does Alaska’s ranked voting system work?
Unlike most U.S. states, Alaska allows voters to rank candidates based on their preferences rather than voting for just one.
Regardless of political party, the four candidates who receive the most votes in the primary will advance to the general election.
If no one receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, the candidate who receives the fewest votes is eliminated. Their votes go to the next-place candidate who is still campaigning. This continues until two candidates remain, and the candidate with the most votes wins.
Wright said the system helps prevent vote splitting for candidates with smaller bases.
“This is to eliminate the spoiler effect,” he explained.
For example, if voters mistakenly choose Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and rank the incumbent second, their vote could end up going to the senator.
“This system is actually designed to handle this kind of thing,” Wright said.
However, voters are not required to rank all candidates, so some votes may not be transferred.
Can the federal government block certification of results?
The Justice Department may ask a federal court to intervene, but it may not be able to stop Alaska on its own from certifying the results.
The lawsuit seeks to delay certification in the event a Republican incumbent loses and votes cast for another, Dan Sullivan, could have changed the outcome.
Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame, questioned how officials would determine which candidates voters intended to support.
“The best evidence that voters preferred one Sullivan over another is how they marked their ballots,” he wrote on his Election Law blog.
Mueller also questioned the legal basis for the lawsuit.
The Justice Department cited the National Voter Registration Act’s “Findings and Purposes” section, which lists among the purposes of the law the protection of “the integrity of the election process.”
But Mueller argued that the department was treating the statement as a legal obligation, even though the law says nothing about which candidates will appear on the ballot.
He said the argument was “very flimsy” and had “essentially no chance of success.”
He also questioned why the ministry waited until days before the election to intervene when the dispute between the two candidates had been known for months.
Nabors said the case could still impact voters even if the court doesn’t rule by Election Day.
“Whether or not the case is decided in time, it will at least raise awareness among voters and potentially limit the number of people who mistakenly vote for the other Mr. Sullivan,” he told Al Jazeera.
No federal court has ordered Alaska to withhold certification.
What does this mean for the midterm elections?
Alaska’s Senate race could play a role in determining which party controls the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress.
Currently, Republicans hold 53 of the 100-member Senate, and 47 seats are held by Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Republicans. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to reach 51 seats and secure a majority.
A 50-50 split would allow Vice President J.D. Vance to cast the tie-breaking vote on the floor.
“Senator Sullivan’s loss also deprives the Republican caucus of an important senator, who has influence over foreign policy and energy policy,” Neighbors said.
Wright said the race in such a traditionally Republican state reflects widespread dissatisfaction with the Trump administration.
“The fact that the Alaska race has become so competitive is a real indicator of how difficult the path is for many Republican candidates in the current public opinion environment,” Wright said.
The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the Trump administration can challenge certification in other states where Republicans lost.
The Justice Department has already faced criticism over investigations and prosecutions involving Democratic opponents of President Trump.
Federal agents recently raided the home of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar as part of an immigration fraud investigation. Omar described the action as politically motivated.
President Trump has acknowledged that he has directed the Justice Department to file the Alaska lawsuit, but the administration maintains the move was to prevent voter confusion.
