The Justice Department is investigating claims that Democratic operatives recruited Alaska Senate candidate Daniel J. Sullivan, known as “Decoy Dan,” to draw votes away from Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan. Some election-law experts with liberal leanings have criticized the investigation as federal overreach.
Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member, argued that the case brought by the Biden-era Justice Department against Donald Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election provides a precedent for the Alaska inquiry.
“The Justice Department has talked about a potential conspiracy to defraud the voters of Alaska, and people are saying, ‘Oh, he’s got no case. That’s a weak case,’” said von Spakovsky, now a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom. He suggested critics read the indictment brought by former special counsel Jack Smith against Trump in Washington, D.C., saying it established a precedent.
At a Friday news conference, Alaska U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman said the department was investigating whether Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher running without a party affiliation, coordinated with Democratic operatives linked to the campaign of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola. FBI officials and Alaska State Troopers joined Heyman at the announcement.
The Justice Department had already sued Alaska election officials, seeking to prevent certification of the results if Sen. Dan Sullivan lost by fewer votes than Daniel J. Sullivan received. The department amended its lawsuit Friday after a New York Times report alleged that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and senior members of Peltola’s campaign had worked to recruit candidates who might take votes from the incumbent. Heyman referred to the report several times during the news conference.
“We are taking that extremely seriously,” Heyman said.
Justice Department sources said the Trump administration had issued more than 30 subpoenas in 24 hours as part of the criminal investigation. Heyman did not specify what charges, if any, prosecutors were considering.
“I’m not making any assumptions on whether a crime has been committed or not,” he said. “That’s why we are conducting that thorough investigation.”
Von Spakovsky said any possible charges against Democratic operatives could draw on federal laws similar to those used in Smith’s 2023 indictment of Trump. He cited statutes covering conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights. In Trump’s case, prosecutors alleged that he used fraud and deceit to obstruct the process for certifying the 2020 election and conspired to keep voters from having their lawful ballots counted.
In Alaska, von Spakovsky said, prosecutors might pursue comparable legal theories if they conclude that operatives knowingly recruited Daniel J. Sullivan to confuse voters and divert support from Sen. Dan Sullivan.
He said Smith’s indictment advanced a similar argument: that Trump had sought to deprive voters of fair and honest elections. In von Spakovsky’s view, that case set a precedent for the current Justice Department investigation.
Aubrey Wieber, executive director of the progressive advocacy group 907 Initiative, which has run ads criticizing Sen. Sullivan, questioned the timing of the announcement. Speaking to Alaska Public Media, Wieber suggested that announcing the investigation so close to Election Day could reflect other motives.
“One could say it appears that they are trying to interfere in an election and put their thumb on the scale,” Wieber said.
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit on Oct. 22. Critics argued that the federal government had no authority to intervene, and some pointed to the Alaska Supreme Court’s earlier rejection of the state’s effort to keep Daniel J. Sullivan off the ballot.
Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, said the department’s argument—that voters might confuse two candidates named Sullivan—had already been addressed by the state Supreme Court in June. He also noted that the ballot identifies the incumbent and argued that federal authorities have no role in enforcing state election law.
Von Spakovsky described recruiting a candidate with the same name as a political opponent as a “dirty trick,” but said recruitment alone would not necessarily be a crime. The legal concerns could be different, he said, if operatives paid the candidate or provided services to help run and organize the campaign.
Campaign assistance beyond volunteer work can count as an in-kind contribution and may be subject to federal contribution and reporting requirements, von Spakovsky said. If such help was not properly reported, it could lead to a separate campaign-finance violation.
