The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit aimed at influencing the outcome of Alaska's Senate race, seeking to block the certification of election results under specific circumstances if Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses. The suit centers on the potential for voter confusion due to another candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, running against the incumbent.
This intervention by the federal government has drawn sharp criticism from voting rights experts, who question its legal standing and view it as an unprecedented political maneuver. Donald Trump, on his Truth Social platform, expressed concern about the race, stating the situation was "totally confusing" and that "even 1, 2, or 3% could make the difference."
The DOJ's lawsuit alleges that Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy was not made in good faith but rather solely to benefit Democrat Mary Peltola. The department proposes that if the incumbent Sullivan loses but would have won with Daniel J. Sullivan's votes, the results should be recalculated as if those votes had gone to the incumbent. However, the suit does not specify how voter intent would be distinguished between the two candidates with similar names.
This legal challenge follows earlier attempts by Republicans to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot, citing concerns that voters might mistakenly cast ballots for him instead of the incumbent senator. Alaska's Division of Elections initially determined his candidacy was not filed in good faith, but this decision was overturned by an Alaska Superior Court judge who ruled that no such "good faith" criterion exists in state law or the Constitution. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld this ruling. A "mitigating remedy" of including middle initials and the word "incumbent" next to Sen. Sullivan's name was subsequently implemented.
Despite these court rulings and implemented remedies, the DOJ issued grand jury subpoenas in August as part of an investigation into whether Daniel J. Sullivan entered the race to confuse voters. The department's current lawsuit cites language from the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) regarding the "protection of the electoral process."
Voting rights advocates and legal scholars largely dismiss the DOJ's claim. Derek Muller, a professor of election law at the University of Notre Dame, described the legal argument as "absurdly thin" and suggested the lawsuit's primary purpose might be to signal the Trump administration's readiness to challenge unfavorable election results. Richard Hasen, a law professor at UCLA, called the move a "desperate and unprofessional assault" on the American election system.
Alaskans for Mary and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have filed motions to intervene in the DOJ's case, asserting that "Alaskans, apparently, must elect Senator Dan S. Sullivan or the President will not let them elect anyone at all." Common Cause has also filed a motion to join the case in opposition to the DOJ.
Alaska's other senator, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, condemned the DOJ's intervention, stating, "Alaskans don't need any help voting for their preferred candidates. The Department of Justice should never have filed this lawsuit."
Sarah E. State, Director of Elections for the Alaska Division of Elections, has stated that the state's election officials are following state law, which she contends the courts will uphold. The NVRA, enacted in 1993, has historically been used to address barriers to voter registration and to ensure the maintenance of accurate voter rolls. Previous administrations have used the NVRA to sue states for failing to comply with registration requirements or for improperly purging voter rolls. However, legal experts argue that the NVRA does not authorize blocking election certification based on perceived voter confusion, as proposed in the DOJ's Alaska lawsuit. Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warned that if accepted, the DOJ's argument could "suddenly federalize many issues of local election administration."