The United States Justice Department has sued to stop Alaska from certifying the result of its Senate election if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan loses by a narrow margin, arguing that voters could be confused because another candidate on the ballot is also named Dan Sullivan.
The lawsuit, filed on October 22 in federal court in Anchorage, asks a judge to block certification of any result that ‘may be impacted by voter confusion’ until there is an investigation into whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant for Senator Sullivan. President Donald Trump said on October 23 that he directed the department to bring the case, telling reporters: ‘I’m the one that said do it.’
No court has yet blocked anything. The election is on November 3, and the administration has not asked the court for emergency action so far. The case is therefore a pre-emptive challenge to a result that does not exist yet, and that timing is a large part of why it has drawn such sharp criticism from election lawyers.
What the lawsuit asks for
The department’s central claim is that Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher and former US Forest Service worker, is running ‘with the intention of misleading supporters of Senator Sullivan into voting for him.’ It says his campaign website uses a format, colour scheme and theme similar to the senator’s campaign site, and that he sought to appear on the ballot as ‘Dan Sullivan,’ the name the incumbent commonly uses.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare that certifying a result affected by voter confusion would violate the duty to protect the integrity of the electoral process under the National Voter Registration Act. It then asks the court to prevent Alaska from certifying such a result pending an investigation into what voters intended.
A Justice Department spokesperson said the department was taking ‘necessary steps to ensure that this frivolous candidacy does not undermine the integrity of Alaska’s election or the will of its voters.’ Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Saturday that the department did not coordinate with any campaign or candidate, writing that the litigation seeks to ensure ballots are preserved so Alaska’s own officials have the information needed to judge whether voters were confused or misled.
The two Dan Sullivans
The confusion at the heart of the case is real as a matter of names, but the ballot itself already tries to separate the two men. Senator Dan S. Sullivan, the incumbent seeking a third six-year term, is listed as a registered Republican and as the incumbent. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr appears without a party designation next to his name, even though he is a registered Republican.
Daniel J. Sullivan filed to run on May 29, saying he wanted to ‘put Alaska first.’ He has denied in interviews that his aim is to confuse voters or divert votes from the senator. In the August primary, the incumbent won 68,726 votes while Daniel J. Sullivan won 4,107, and both advanced to the general election along with Democrat Mary Peltola and a fourth candidate, Gerald Heikes.
The dispute over the second Sullivan is not new. Alaska’s director of elections determined on June 15 that he had not declared a ‘good-faith candidacy’ but had ‘filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead’ voters, and removed him from the ballot. The Alaska Supreme Court reversed that decision in June and allowed him to stay on the ballot. That history matters, because the federal lawsuit is now asking a federal court to revisit ground Alaska’s own courts have already covered.
How Alaska votes, and why it matters here
Alaska does not use a traditional pick-one system. The top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, advance to the general election, where voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated in each round and those votes are reallocated to the voters’ next choice, until someone wins.
The department argues this system makes the confusion worse: a voter who meant to support the senator might not rank him at all, or might rank Daniel J. Sullivan above him, and those votes could then flow to Peltola in later rounds. ‘Even if a majority of Alaskans wish to vote for Senator Sullivan, Daniel J. Sullivan’s presence on the ballot will result in a victory for Peltola,’ the lawsuit states.
Election lawyers note the opposite point with equal force. A voter who wants the senator can rank both Sullivans first and second, in either order, and the vote would still reach the incumbent as long as Peltola does not win a majority outright. Because ballots are mixed together after voting, it is also unclear how any post-election investigation could identify which individual voters were confused. ‘This is just the stuff that is just impossible to measure after the fact,’ said Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller.
Why experts say the legal theory is weak
Muller called the department’s argument ‘one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen,’ and said the lawsuit appeared ‘designed to win the press release rather than the litigation.’ His objection is specific: the lawsuit leans on the introductory purpose language of the National Voter Registration Act, which speaks of protecting the integrity of the electoral process, rather than on a provision that authorises a court to block a state’s certification.
David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research said the administration ‘has absolutely no authority to tell Alaska when or how to certify the results of its Senate election,’ adding that ‘this issue has already been fully litigated by Alaska’s courts.’ Vanita Gupta, a former associate attorney general, called the case ‘meritless,’ saying no federal statute authorises the relief sought and that the Constitution gives Alaska, not the Justice Department, authority over its ballot, vote counting and certification. Former Alaska attorney general Bruce Botelho called the lawsuit ‘unprecedented’ and said the state supreme court’s earlier ruling was the final word on Alaska election law.
Ben Ginsberg, a former top election lawyer for the Republican National Committee, added a practical warning: federal courts are reluctant to change voting rules close to an election, and the Supreme Court had just frozen a ruling blocking a New Hampshire voter ID policy on exactly that reasoning. He also noted that, as with the recent Justice Department lawsuit over California ballots, this case was filed from a political appointee’s office in Washington that does not normally lead this kind of litigation. ‘I think they must have a client who is demanding it,’ he said. ‘There is not a rational legal reason to do it.’
The case has been assigned to Judge Sharon L. Gleason. Alaska election officials expect to begin the ranked-choice tabulation process on November 18, after the deadline for overseas ballots to arrive.
Reactions: a divided response, including from Alaska Republicans
The reaction split sharply, and not only along party lines. Peltola spokesperson Harry Child called the lawsuit ‘a despicable political threat to overturn an election,’ saying the campaign would fight to ensure every eligible Alaskan voter could be heard and that no outside official could interfere with the state’s lawful elections.
Alaska’s other Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, who is not up for re-election this year, criticised the lawsuit directly. ‘Alaskans don’t need any help voting for their preferred candidates, and the State of Alaska has already handled this by clearly distinguishing the candidates on this year’s ballot. The Department of Justice should never have filed this lawsuit,’ she wrote.
The incumbent’s camp was more measured. A spokesman for Senator Sullivan said he would ‘let the DOJ complaint run its course,’ adding that Alaskans could tell the difference between what he called a Democrat sideshow and the senator’s record of delivering for Alaska.
Trump himself has complained about the second Sullivan for weeks. At a rally in Wasilla, Alaska, earlier in October, he called the ballot situation cheating, saying of the challenger: ‘They found a guy named Dan Sullivan. They put him up to get a little confused.’
Why Alaska could decide the Senate
Control of the Senate may come down to this race. Republicans currently lead the chamber 53-47, and Democrats need to net four seats in November to win it. Alaska is one of several Republican-held states Democrats hope to flip, and polling has shown Peltola tied with or slightly ahead of the incumbent, even though Trump carried Alaska by roughly 13 to 14 percentage points in 2024.
That context explains the stakes, but it does not settle the legal question. If Peltola wins outright, or if the incumbent wins, the lawsuit’s central scenario never arises. Only a narrow Peltola win in which Daniel J. Sullivan’s votes could plausibly have changed the outcome would put the department’s request squarely before a judge, and even then, experts say there is a high likelihood it is thrown out.
How this differs from the California ballots case
This is the second pre-election Justice Department intervention in a matter of days, and the contrast is instructive. In California, the department ordered counties to set aside mail ballots from suspected noncitizens for 48-hour citizenship checks, a demand aimed at how ballots are handled after they arrive. The Justice Department’s California ballot order concerned segregation and verification of ballots already cast.
The Alaska case goes further. It does not ask officials to set ballots aside or check them; it asks a court to block certification of the result itself, before the votes are even counted, based on confusion that may or may not have affected the outcome. That is why lawyers describe the Alaska theory as more novel, and more difficult to enforce, than the California demand.
What happens next
The next steps are procedural, not dramatic, unless the department seeks emergency relief. The court will set a schedule, Alaska will defend its certification process, and the parties may argue over whether the case can even proceed before an election result exists. Meanwhile, campaigning continues: Barack Obama campaigned in Ohio and Michigan in the same midterm stretch, a reminder that both parties are fighting nationally for control of Congress, not only in Alaska.
Voters go to the polls on November 3. After overseas ballots arrive, Alaska begins its ranked-choice tabulation on November 18. Only then will anyone know whether the scenario the lawsuit imagines — a narrow loss for the incumbent that Daniel J. Sullivan’s votes might have changed — has actually happened. Until then, the lawsuit stands as a warning shot about certification, not a block on it.
Timeline
- May 29, 2026: Daniel J. Sullivan Jr files to run for the US Senate in Alaska.
- June 15, 2026: Alaska’s director of elections finds his candidacy was filed to confuse or mislead voters and removes him from the ballot.
- June 2026: The Alaska Supreme Court reverses that decision and allows him to remain on the ballot.
- August 2026: In the primary, Senator Sullivan wins 68,726 votes and Daniel J. Sullivan wins 4,107; both advance with Peltola and Gerald Heikes.
- October 2026: Trump holds a rally in Wasilla, Alaska, and complains about the two Dan Sullivans on the ballot.
- October 22, 2026: The Justice Department files its lawsuit in federal court in Anchorage.
- October 23, 2026: Trump tells reporters he directed the department to file the case: ‘I’m the one that said do it.’
- October 24-25, 2026: Murkowski, Peltola’s campaign and election lawyers respond; Blanche says the department did not coordinate with any campaign.
- November 3, 2026: Election Day in Alaska.
- November 18, 2026: Alaska expects to begin ranked-choice tabulation after the overseas-ballot deadline.
Frequently asked questions
Who are the two Dan Sullivans? Senator Dan S. Sullivan is the Republican incumbent seeking a third term. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr is a retired teacher and former Forest Service worker who is also on the ballot, without a party designation, and who denies trying to confuse voters.
What does the Justice Department want? It wants a federal judge to block Alaska from certifying a Senate result that ‘may be impacted by voter confusion,’ pending an investigation into whether votes for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant for the senator.
Has certification actually been blocked? No. No court has ruled, and the department has not yet sought emergency action. The election has not happened yet.
Why do experts doubt the lawsuit? They say no federal statute authorises a court to block certification on this basis, that Alaska’s courts already ruled on the second Sullivan’s ballot place, and that it would be nearly impossible after the fact to identify confused voters from mixed ballots.
When will Alaska’s result be known? Voting is on November 3, and ranked-choice tabulation is expected to begin on November 18, after overseas ballots arrive.
Could this decide control of the Senate? Possibly. Democrats need to net four seats to win the Senate, and Alaska is one of the Republican-held seats they hope to flip, so a close race there carries national consequences.
Related coverage
Read more in the US News section, including the Justice Department’s California ballot order and how Barack Obama campaigned in Ohio and Michigan as the midterm race tightened.