The Trump administration has filed a preemptive lawsuit challenging the certification of Alaska’s Senate election results in the event that the Republican incumbent, Senator Dan Sullivan, narrowly loses. The legal action, filed shortly before the November election, contends that the presence of a second candidate with a nearly identical name—Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.—could cause voter confusion and potentially affect the outcome. However, election law experts widely dismiss the case as lacking sound legal foundation.
The lawsuit seeks to block Alaska’s certification of the election results if Senator Sullivan is defeated but argues that he would have won had votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. been properly attributed to the incumbent. Alaska’s unique ranked-choice voting system, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference and redistributes votes as candidates are eliminated, complicates the claim. In theory, votes initially cast for the similarly named candidate could eventually count for Senator Sullivan if voters ranked him as a subsequent preference.
Despite this, polling data indicates that former Democratic Representative Mary Peltola holds a narrow lead over Senator Sullivan, while Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. garners only minimal support. The lawsuit calls for a court-ordered investigation to determine how many votes for the lesser-known Sullivan were intended for the incumbent, though it does not specify procedures for such an inquiry.
Legal scholars point out that the Justice Department lacks clear standing to bring this case. The U.S. Constitution delegates authority over congressional elections primarily to the states unless Congress legislates otherwise. The lawsuit cites the National Voter Registration Act to justify federal intervention, claiming the Justice Department can act to protect election integrity. Yet experts argue that the statute’s language is too vague and does not directly address ballot access or certification issues raised by the Sullivan candidacy dispute.
“The Constitution doesn’t give [the department] standing, either,” said Richard L. Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Los Angeles. His view is echoed by other specialists who consider the complaint legally weak and unlikely to succeed.
Alaska’s state courts have already addressed the matter. Election officials initially disqualified Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., deeming him not a bona fide candidate, but a court ruling allowed his placement on the ballot. The Alaska Supreme Court later upheld that decision. The state’s Division of Elections has taken measures to reduce voter confusion by labeling Senator Sullivan as “Dan S. Sullivan,” identifying his incumbent status and party affiliation, while the other candidate appears as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” without party designation.
Observers describe the lawsuit as “press-release litigation,” reflecting a strategic effort to cast the Justice Department as defending a Republican incumbent facing an unusual challenge, rather than a case grounded in strong legal claims. With the election imminent and the ballot finalized, election law experts suggest that the matter is best resolved through the political process rather than federal court intervention.