DOJ sues to block Alaska from certifying Senate race winner if Republican narrowly loses

The Department of Justice is asking an Alaska federal judge to block the state from certifying the winner of its 2026 Senate election if the result may have been affected by confusion involving Daniel J. Sullivan. The lawsuit says certification could violate election-integrity duties.

The concern is that voters intending to support incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan could mistakenly choose Daniel J. Sullivan instead. The lawsuit also says voters could become confused about how to rank the Republican candidates under Alaska’s ranked-choice system. Daniel J. Sullivan received only 2.5% in the primary but qualified for the general election.

The DOJ is not asking the court to decide the winner directly. It seeks to prevent certification of any result impacted by the disputed ballot listing. The race is rated a toss-up, and polling gives Democrat Mary Peltola a narrow two-point lead, making the legal challenge especially consequential.

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates as their first, second, third, or later choices. Instead of counting only one selection, election officials use the rankings in rounds. A candidate with too few votes can be eliminated, and ballots for that candidate may move to the next available preference.

In this race, the DOJ says supporters of Sen. Dan Sullivan might mistakenly choose Daniel J. Sullivan or rank the Republicans incorrectly. If Daniel J. Sullivan is eliminated, votes cast for him could transfer to the next candidate those voters ranked. A voter who ranked Mary Peltola next could therefore help Peltola.

The article does not describe every tabulation rule, but it identifies the central mechanism: votes can move after elimination. Daniel J. Sullivan was expected to be eliminated in the first or second round, potentially transferring votes when the contest could be close.

Daniel J. Sullivan qualified because Alaska’s open primary sent the four highest vote-getters to the Senate general-election ballot. He received 2.5% of the vote on August 28, which was still enough to place among those four candidates.

Mary Peltola led the primary with 49.5%, while incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan received 41.1%. Another Republican, Gerald Heikes, received 1.1%. Those four candidates therefore advanced, including Daniel J. Sullivan despite his much smaller share.

This ballot structure explains why a candidate with limited primary support appears in the general election. The result also created the conflict behind the DOJ lawsuit. The department alleges Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy was intended to confuse supporters of the incumbent, while Alaska’s elections director found it was for confusing or misleading voters.

The Senate race is extremely close. FiftyPlusOne’s polling average gives former Alaska House member Mary Peltola a two-point lead over incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan. The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates the contest one of seven Senate toss-ups.

That narrow margin matters because Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, not a single-round vote. Voters rank candidates, and ballots for eliminated candidates can transfer according to later preferences. If some Dan Sullivan supporters select Daniel J. Sullivan by mistake, or fail to rank Dan Sullivan properly, the distribution of later-round votes could change.

The article does not give a precise number of confused ballots needed to change the result. It does show why a small shift could matter: Daniel J. Sullivan received 2.5% in the primary, while the general-election polling gap is only two points. The DOJ argues that confusion could affect certification.

If supporters of Sen. Dan Sullivan accidentally vote for Daniel J. Sullivan, those ballots would initially count for the wrong candidate. The DOJ says other supporters might also become confused about how to rank the Republican candidates and fail to rank the senator at all.

Under ranked-choice voting, Daniel J. Sullivan’s likely elimination could trigger transfers. The lawsuit says votes for him could move to the voter’s next-ranked candidate. If that candidate were Mary Peltola, the transferred votes could strengthen her position. Ballots with no usable later choice might not help either major candidate.

The article does not predict a definite outcome. It says Daniel J. Sullivan is expected to be eliminated in the first or second tabulation round and that confusion could affect the result. Because polling shows Peltola ahead by two points, those transfers could matter in this toss-up race.

Election certification is the formal process in which election officials verify the counted results and declare the reported winner. It matters because a vote count is not usually the final legal result until the authorized officials complete this step. Certification turns the tabulated outcome into the state’s official election result.

In Alaska’s Senate race, the DOJ asks a judge to stop the state from certifying any result affected by confusion caused by Daniel J. Sullivan’s name and candidacy. The lawsuit says Alaska and its officers must protect election integrity and follow duties under the National Voter Registration Act.

The article does not detail Alaska’s full certification procedures. It presents certification as the point at which the disputed result would be officially accepted. If the court grants the request, the state could be prevented from finalizing a result the DOJ believes was tainted by ballot confusion.

States administer most election operations, including ballots, counting, and certification. However, federal election laws establish requirements that apply nationwide. When the federal government alleges that a state’s process violates those requirements, the Justice Department can ask a federal court to review the conduct and provide a remedy.

Here, the DOJ argues that certifying a result affected by confusion would violate Alaska officials’ duties under the National Voter Registration Act to protect election integrity. It also cites the Alaska elections director’s finding that Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy was intended to confuse or mislead voters and compromise ballot fairness.

The article does not explain the full constitutional framework for federal election oversight. It does show the claimed legal route: the DOJ filed in U.S. District Court in Alaska and seeks an order blocking certification. The judge, rather than the DOJ alone, would decide whether the state may certify the result.