A US federal judge has dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit seeking to delay certification of Alaska’s Senate election if Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan loses, just two days before polling day on Tuesday 3 November.
US District Judge Sharon Gleason ruled on Sunday 1 November that the Justice Department had failed to show how a court could remedy its claimed concern over voter confusion without compromising ballot secrecy. The government has already filed a notice of appeal.
What the court decided
The case arose because two candidates with similar names are on Alaska’s ballot: incumbent Republican senator Dan S. Sullivan and retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., listed without a party affiliation. Democrat Mary Peltola is also standing in the closely watched contest.
The Justice Department asked the court to prevent certification of any outcome potentially affected by confusion between the two Sullivans, while investigating whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were intended for the incumbent.
In her 20-page 1 November ruling, Gleason found that the government had not established the legal standing needed for its proposed remedy. She said there was no workable plan to separate and investigate the relevant votes while maintaining the secrecy of ballots already cast, and that the timing conflicted with the constitutional responsibility of states to administer elections.
The dismissal blocks the requested relief at this stage. It is not a judicial finding that voters could not be confused, nor a verdict on every allegation concerning the second candidate.
Why there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot
The dispute began months before the federal lawsuit. In June, Alaska’s Division of Elections initially disqualified Daniel J. Sullivan, saying evidence suggested that his candidacy was intended to confuse voters. He successfully challenged that decision. Alaska’s Superior Court found the disqualification was not supported by the applicable law or sufficient evidence, and the Alaska Supreme Court upheld his right to appear on the ballot on 29 June.
The 18 August primary left four candidates eligible for the ranked-choice general election. Daniel J. Sullivan received roughly 2.5% of the primary vote, while Mary Peltola and incumbent Dan S. Sullivan took the largest shares. The ballot identifies the incumbent and distinguishes the other candidate by middle initial and suffix.
Trump and the incumbent senator have alleged that the similarly named candidate was used to divert Republican votes. Peltola has denied involvement by her campaign. Those accusations remain disputed, and the federal dismissal does not determine whether any coordinated recruitment occurred.
Why certification matters
The Justice Department filed its case on 22 October, after early voting had begun, and amended it on 29 October. It proposed holding up certification under circumstances in which alleged name confusion could affect the result. Alaska officials argued the proposed inquiry was impractical and would infringe voter privacy.
The race is among those that could influence which party controls the US Senate. Alaska uses ranked-choice voting in its general elections, allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than simply choosing one.
As Fish 4 News previously reported, President Trump said he directed the Justice Department to pursue the case. The ruling is a setback for his administration’s effort to obtain pre-election court intervention, but it does not settle the election result, which voters have yet to decide.
What happens next
The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal on 1 November. An appeal is not itself a reversal of Gleason’s decision. Unless a higher court orders otherwise, the dismissed lawsuit provides no current basis for the requested delay to certification.
Voting takes place on Tuesday 3 November. Fish 4 News will distinguish any further court action from the outcome of the election and the separate allegations about candidate recruitment.
Video: commentary on the ruling
The embedded YouTube Short discusses the court ruling. It is commentary rather than a primary source; the court documents and independent reporting are linked below.
