The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that a man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is qualified to run for the seat and ordered elections officials to place him on the August primary ballot. The ruling came hours after the court heard arguments and days after state court Judge Thomas Matthews found the Division of Elections had abused its discretion in removing the challenger from the ballot.
The Supreme Court affirmed Matthews’ decision to include the challenger on the ballot but sent back to the division the issue of how he should be listed on the ballot within the existing election law. A full opinion explaining the court’s decision is expected later.
Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for the challenger Sullivan, expressed gratitude for the ruling and said he expected the division to comply with ballot design law. Sam Curtis, a spokesperson for the state Department of Law, stated the state would work to implement the order.
Nate Adams, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan’s campaign, said while disappointed, the campaign is encouraged that election officials will be able to differentiate between the two candidates. Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher had previously found the challenger’s candidacy was not filed in good faith and was intended to confuse voters. However, Matthews stated Beecher’s decision was not based on constitutional requirements for serving in the Senate or on state laws.
The dispute began when the challenger filed his candidacy about a month ago, adding complexity to one of the country’s closely watched Senate races, which could influence control of the chamber.
The challenger’s filing prompted accusations from Sen. Sullivan and his allies that the challenger is a sham candidate aiming to sow chaos. Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees elections, announced an investigation into the candidacy. Complaints questioning the challenger's party affiliation and motives were filed by the Alaska Republican Party chair.
Sen. Sullivan also accused the challenger of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola to cause confusion. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger, who stated the decision to run was his own. Peltola is considered the incumbent senator's main rival in a race featuring more than a dozen candidates. The top four vote-getters in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to a ranked-choice general election in November.
The challenger Sullivan, 69, a retired teacher from Petersburg, told The Associated Press that he grew frustrated with the incumbent and felt the timing was right for his run. He said he aims to draw votes from the senator but is not trying to trick people.
Attorneys for the challenger argued before the state Supreme Court that the elections division’s disqualification was based on unsupportable “good-faith” criteria. Matthews agreed in his decision, stating the division’s determination was based on a new, unstated criterion.
Beecher had cited similarities between the challenger’s campaign website and the senator’s, as well as his work with a consultant whose clients included Democrats. She did not report finding evidence of coordination. Attorneys general from 14 Republican-led states submitted a brief supporting the division and asking the state Supreme Court to keep the challenger off the ballot.
Attorneys for the state proposed that if the challenger were placed on the ballot, he should be listed as Daniel James Sullivan Jr. with a nonpartisan affiliation, arguing the division could deny him being labeled a Republican due to his lack of prior affiliation. They proposed the senator be listed as Dan Sullivan, registered Republican and incumbent. Attorneys for the challenger countered that listing their client as “nonpartisan” would be unlawful, as Alaska law allows him to be listed by his party preference, proposing he be listed as Dan J. Sullivan, a Republican. They suggested the senator could use his middle initial and the state’s candidate information pamphlet to address potential confusion.