The Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing significant challenges in Alaska as it seeks to persuade a federal court that confusion over the names of two Senate candidates—both named Dan Sullivan—could warrant postponing the certification of election results.
About two weeks before the election scheduled for October 22, the DOJ filed a lawsuit aiming to delay the certification in the event that incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan loses and if votes for another candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan, may have influenced the outcome. This legal action hinges on an investigation to determine whether voters might have accidentally voted for the wrong Sullivan.
This situation arises from a ballot controversy in Alaska where the two Dan Sullivans, one a retired teacher and the other the current state senator, are listed next to each other. Although Alaska has typically leaned Republican in its Senate races, this year’s battle could hold added significance on a national level, especially as Republicans attempt to maintain their slim Senate majority.
According to a report from the New York Times, Mary Peltola, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Alaska, allegedly collaborated with strategists to introduce another Dan Sullivan into the race, presumably to confuse voters and divert support from the incumbent senator. The Times cited interviews and documents indicating these efforts, despite the Peltola campaign’s consistent denials of involvement in this secondary candidate’s entry into the race.
Peltola’s campaign, along with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit, insisting that the federal law invoked by the DOJ pertains to voter registration and not the eligibility of candidates or how ballots are designed. They are also pressing the court to reach a resolution prior to Election Day.
Conservative voices argue that having two candidates with similar names on the ballot may mislead voters who intend to support the incumbent Republican senator. They claim that while sharing a name is not necessarily a valid reason for disqualification, the state’s ranked-choice voting system allows voters to express preferences that could mitigate confusion over name similarity.
Initially, Alaska’s Division of Elections sided with conservative claims and disqualified the retired teacher, stating that his candidacy was not a genuine effort but rather intended to confuse voters. However, Judge Thomas Matthews overturned that ruling in June, stating that the Division of Elections did not have the authority to invalidate a candidacy on those grounds.
The ballot for Alaska’s general election distinguishes the incumbent senator as “Sullivan, Dan S.” with a Republican designation, while the other candidate is listed as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” without a party affiliation. Some argue this difference is enough to alleviate potential voter confusion, yet the DOJ’s lawyers remain doubtful about that premise.
Although Attorney General Todd Blanche suggested examining ballot patterns for signs of voter confusion, the DOJ hasn’t clarified how those findings would definitively show that voters mistakenly picked the wrong candidate. Privacy laws present a challenge for establishing these links, as it would be incredibly difficult to associate specific voters with particular ballots to substantiate claims of confusion.
Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame, remarked on the difficulties of measuring post-vote confusion, highlighting the complexities involved in trying to infer voter intent from anonymous ballots.
Blanche has been open about his approach to tackling this situation. He noted that due to ranked voting, voters have the opportunity to list multiple names on their ballots, which could indicate confusion in their selections. Yet, he acknowledged that others might dispute whether those patterns convince someone that voters intended to support different candidates.
Experts like Don Palmer from the Heritage Foundation believe the DOJ might have a solid case, provided they gather appropriate evidence. However, he emphasizes that statistical analysis alone won’t likely persuade a judge of their argument. Palmer points out that for an overturn to be justified, the campaign must present witness testimony and detailed statistical evidence indicating widespread voter confusion.
Ben Hovland, from the Center for American Progress, expressed skepticism about the DOJ’s chances in this situation. He mentioned that making a claim grounded in the National Voter Registration Act is uncommon and may not stand up in court given that the Alaska Supreme Court previously ruled on related matters.
Overall, the DOJ’s quest appears challenging. Their case is still pending, and Alaska officials are moving to dismiss it altogether while awaiting further developments.
