DOJ probe into Alaska's 'Decoy Dan' scheme follows precedent set by Trump indictment, ex-FEC chair claims

The Justice Department is investigating allegations that Democratic operatives recruited Daniel J. Sullivan, a candidate dubbed "Decoy Dan," to siphon votes from Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan in the Alaska Senate race. Former Federal Election Commission member Hans von Spakovsky argued that the Biden-era Justice Department's prosecution of Donald Trump over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election laid the groundwork for this probe.

"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,'" Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. "Well, I suggest you do a Google search and pull up the indictment that Jack Smith got against Donald Trump in the District of Columbia. He set a precedent for this."

Alaska U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman announced that the Justice Department, alongside FBI officials and Alaska State Troopers, has been investigating whether Daniel J. Sullivan was colluding with Democratic operatives tied to Democratic candidate Mary Peltola's campaign. The Justice Department previously sued Alaska election officials, seeking to block certification if Sen. Dan Sullivan loses re-election by fewer votes than those cast for Daniel J. Sullivan. The lawsuit was amended to include reporting by The New York Times that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and senior aides of Peltola's campaign allegedly worked to recruit candidates who could pull votes away from Sen. Sullivan.

Heyman mentioned the Times reporting repeatedly at a press conference. "We are taking that extremely seriously," he said. Sources at the Justice Department told Fox News that the Trump administration had issued more than 30 subpoenas in a 24-hour period as part of its criminal investigation into alleged collusion, but Heyman did not specify potential criminal charges.

"I'm not making any assumptions on whether a crime has been committed or not," Heyman said. "That's why we are conducting that thorough investigation."

Von Spakovsky stated that potential indictments of Democratic operatives in the Alaska Senate race could rely on federal statutes similar to those used in the 2023 indictment of Trump. These include charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights, alleging that Trump obstructed the certification of the 2020 election and conspired to deprive voters of having their lawful votes counted. Spakovsky suggested that similar legal theories could be applied in Alaska if operatives are found to have knowingly recruited Daniel J. Sullivan to confuse voters and divert votes from Sen. Dan Sullivan.

"Smith's indictment is basically along exactly those same lines, claiming that Donald Trump was trying to defraud U.S. voters from fair and honest elections. So Jack Smith and Democrats, they set the precedent for the kind of investigation Justice Department is doing now," Spakovsky said.

Aubrey Wieber, executive director of the progressive advocacy group 907 Initiative, suggested to Alaska Public Media that the timing of the press conference announcing the investigation, "on the eve of the election," might stem from ulterior 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's lawsuit, filed on Oct. 22, drew criticism from those who argued the federal government lacked authority to intervene. The Alaska Supreme Court had previously rejected the state's effort to disqualify Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot, noting that ballot labels distinguish the incumbent.

"DOJ's theory: two candidates named Sullivan might confuse voters. The Alaska Supreme Court settled that in June and the ballot labels the incumbent. DOJ has no role in state election law," commented Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause.

Spakovsky described recruiting a candidate with the same name as an opponent as a "dirty trick," but stated that recruitment alone is not necessarily a criminal violation. He noted that the legal analysis could shift if operatives paid the candidate or provided campaign organization services. Providing campaign assistance beyond volunteer work constitutes an in-kind contribution, subject to federal reporting and contribution rules. Spakovsky added that any failure to properly report such contributions could lead to separate campaign-finance violations.