DOJ sues over Alaska Senate certification
Archived — this story has rotated out of today’s deck. It is kept here in full.
The gist
The Justice Department sued Alaska to block certification of its Senate race if Sen. Dan Sullivan loses.
The suit targets a same-name candidate it says could hand the seat to Democrat Mary Peltola.
Background
The race pits Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan against Democrat Mary Peltola, a former US House member from Alaska, in one of several Senate contests that could decide whether Republicans keep their slim majority. A third candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., appears on the ballot with a very similar name; the Justice Department describes him as a Republican, while POLITICO calls him an independent. Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, adopted by voters in 2020 and first used in 2022, and state courts let Daniel J. Sullivan stay on the ballot. The suit, signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, was filed less than two weeks before the Nov 3 midterms.
How it unfolded
- Aug 28, 2026In Alaska's open primary, Mary Peltola took 49.5 percent and Sen. Dan Sullivan 41.1 percent, while Daniel J. Sullivan won one of four general-election ballot spots with 2.5 percent.
- Oct 22, 2026The Justice Department filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Alaska against the state, Elections Director Carol Beecher and its election boards, seeking to block certification of the Senate race if Sen. Dan Sullivan loses.
- Oct 23, 2026The filing, signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, was reported; it argues there is a realistic chance Daniel J. Sullivan's presence on the ballot will produce a Peltola victory. Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters it is not DOJ's intention to improperly interfere with elections or the certification process.
- Nov 3, 2026The midterm elections are scheduled.
Who’s saying what
- Official
- The DOJ says Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy is intended to mislead Sen. Sullivan's supporters and that Alaska should not certify a result that may be affected by voter confusion.
- Caution
- David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research says the late claim smells of political interference, that the federal government has no authority over state certification, and that state officials already addressed the similar-name issue.
- Analysts
- Cato Institute senior fellow Walter Olson calls the suit abusive in intent and bordering on frivolous, and legal scholars say it appears to have little chance of succeeding.
Still unverified
It is unclear how the proposed inquiry into voter intent would work, since ballots are cast anonymously. California officials say the California lawsuit rests on flawed assertions that some registered voters are noncitizens.