DOJ sues to delay Alaska election results if GOP incumbent loses

Certification is the formal step that makes a state’s election result official. The Justice Department is asking Alaska’s federal court to delay that step in a close Senate race if incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan does not win.

The lawsuit focuses on Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher whose name resembles the senator’s. It asks for time to investigate whether some voters accidentally selected Daniel J. Sullivan instead of the incumbent. The lawsuit says the result could change if those votes were reassigned and ranked-choice counting continued.

The request does not automatically change the vote. Alaska’s Division of Elections would first need to examine the alleged confusion. The administration says delaying certification would protect voters’ intent, but Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller told AP that the suit likely will not last because the cited statute does not authorize the Justice Department to block certification.

The race features incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, Democrat Mary Peltola, and retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan. The two Sullivan names are unusually similar, creating the possibility that voters could mistake one candidate for the other.

The senator appears on sample ballots as “Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) Incumbent.” The retired teacher appears as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. Republicans accuse Democrats of planting a same-name candidate to confuse voters, while Peltola’s campaign denies involvement. Daniel J. Sullivan says his candidacy is not a sham.

That distinction matters because Alaska uses ranked-choice voting and the contest is rated a toss-up. If the retired teacher attracts votes intended for the senator, those ballots could affect which candidate survives later counting rounds. The Justice Department says Alaska election officials determined the candidacy was intended to mislead voters.

Ranked-choice voting lets voters rank candidates rather than choosing only one. Alaska’s process eliminates candidates in rounds when no candidate receives 50% of the initial vote. The goal is to identify a winner with majority support after successive counts.

For example, if no candidate reaches 50%, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated. Ballots that ranked that candidate first are then counted for the voter’s next available choice. The process repeats, although the article specifically emphasizes the elimination rounds and the 50% threshold.

That system makes the Sullivan dispute especially important. Votes mistakenly cast for Daniel J. Sullivan could initially help him survive or could later transfer to another candidate. The lawsuit argues that, if those votes had instead gone to Senator Sullivan, the ranked-choice process might have produced a different winner.

The primary numbers show why the Senate contest is attracting attention. Mary Peltola earned 49.5% of the vote, while incumbent Sen. Sullivan collected around 41%. The retired teacher Sullivan received 2.5%.

Those figures do not decide the general election, but they show that no candidate dominated the primary field. Peltola led the senator, while the same-name candidate drew a smaller yet potentially meaningful share. Under ranked-choice voting, later rounds can make early vote totals especially important.

Cook Political Report currently rates the race as a toss-up. The administration says there is a realistic chance that the non-incumbent Sullivan’s presence could tip the result toward Peltola. That possibility is why the Justice Department seeks an investigation before certification if the incumbent loses.

The central alleged consequence is a different winner. If voters selected Daniel J. Sullivan by mistake but intended to support incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan, correcting those ballots could give the senator enough support to prevail.

The lawsuit describes two conditions: the senator must lose, and counting the Daniel J. Sullivan votes as votes for him must produce a Senator Sullivan victory under Alaska’s ranked-choice process. Because candidates can be eliminated in rounds, the effect might extend beyond the first tally and influence later transfers.

The requested delay would give officials time to investigate whether that scenario occurred. The administration says certification should not be affected by the same-name candidacy while the question remains unresolved. However, the article also reports that legal scholar Derek Muller believes the Justice Department’s case will not survive because the statute does not permit it to enjoin certification.

Election certification is the official confirmation of the vote count. It matters because it converts canvassed totals into the state’s formal result, identifying the candidate entitled to be recognized as the winner. The article’s lawsuit seeks to prevent that step from occurring before the alleged voter confusion is examined.

After certification, a losing campaign or other authorized party may generally pursue a recount, administrative review, or court challenge under applicable state law. Courts can sometimes order corrections or a new result if legal requirements are met. The precise deadlines and remedies depend on Alaska law, which the article does not detail.

Certification does not necessarily make every dispute impossible. It usually starts or advances the deadlines for post-election challenges and other legal procedures. Here, the Justice Department wants investigation first, while Derek Muller argues that federal law does not give the department power to stop Alaska from certifying its result.

Federal election law gives the Justice Department authority to enforce certain voting protections, including provisions of the National Voter Registration Act. The administration says that authority supports action against a candidacy it believes could mislead voters and undermine the election’s fairness.

In this case, DOJ filed suit seeking a certification delay while officials investigate whether votes for Daniel J. Sullivan were intended for Senator Dan Sullivan. The department argues that preventing certification is necessary because the senator’s name was already on the ballot and a prior Alaska Supreme Court decision required the other candidate’s inclusion.

The authority is disputed because the National Voter Registration Act does not clearly authorize DOJ to stop a state from certifying election results. Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller told AP that the statute “simply doesn’t let the Department of Justice enjoin certification.” The lawsuit’s survival and any delay therefore remain uncertain.