DOJ sues to block Alaska Senate certification if GOP’s Dan Sullivan loses

The Justice Department is asking a federal court to block certification of Alaska’s Senate election in a specific situation. It wants officials prevented from certifying the result unless incumbent Republican Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan wins. The request matters because state and local officials normally certify election results, while DOJ’s election role is limited by law.

The proposed order has two conditions. First, Senator Sullivan must lose the election. Second, if every vote for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. had instead gone to Senator Sullivan, ranked-choice voting must have produced a Sullivan victory. DOJ says similarly named candidates could confuse voters and affect the result.

The case was filed less than two weeks before Election Day. Alaska’s Division of Elections said it was reviewing the complaint and remained focused on running the election and giving voters confidence. Critics called the lawsuit unprecedented and said certification is a state matter.

Daniel S. Sullivan is Alaska’s sitting Republican senator and the incumbent in the Senate race. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. is a different candidate whose name appeared on the same ballot. The Justice Department claims that the similar names could cause some supporters of the senator to vote accidentally for the other Sullivan.

The ballot distinguishes them through their middle initials and, for the challenger, the suffix “Jr.” The article also says Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. chose to run using “Dan” instead of “Daniel.” His candidacy was challenged after officials questioned whether it was made in good faith and cited his Republican affiliation.

The similarity has become central to the lawsuit. DOJ asks the court to consider a hypothetical in which votes for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. are transferred to Senator Sullivan. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. finished third in August with 2.5%.

Ranked-choice voting is an election system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate meets the required winning threshold, the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated. Ballots that preferred that candidate then count for the next-ranked candidate listed by each voter. This can change the leading candidate during later rounds.

In Alaska’s case, DOJ proposes a hypothetical transfer. It asks what would happen if every ballot cast for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. had instead been cast for incumbent Senator Daniel S. Sullivan. The filing says the court should block certification if that change, followed by Alaska’s ranked-choice process, would give the senator the victory.

The article does not provide the final ranked-choice totals or identify how voters ranked candidates beyond the primary figures. It does show why the system matters here: a small number of votes for a similarly named candidate could potentially affect later counting and the final result.

The August all-party primary showed a clear first-place finish for Democratic nominee Mary Peltola. She received 49.5% of the vote. Incumbent Republican Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan followed with 41.4%. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. finished third, receiving 2.5%.

These figures matter because the three candidates’ names and vote shares form the background to DOJ’s intervention. The department argues that some voters may have confused Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. with the incumbent. It wants a court to examine whether those votes could have changed the eventual Senate winner.

The primary numbers do not themselves determine the final Senate result described in the filing. The article says the November election was still ongoing, with Election Day less than two weeks away when DOJ sued. It also does not provide the November vote totals or the eventual ranked-choice outcome.

The most direct consequence would be a court order stopping Alaska officials from certifying the Senate election result. DOJ’s requested order applies only if incumbent Senator Daniel S. Sullivan does not win and a hypothetical transfer of Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.’s votes would make the senator the ranked-choice winner.

The mechanism is not an automatic recount or a simple change to the published totals. Instead, the court would compare the actual outcome with a hypothetical outcome in which votes for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. were cast for Senator Sullivan. Alaska’s ranked-choice process would then be applied to that altered vote set.

The article does not say what the court will decide or whether certification will actually be blocked. Alaska officials were reviewing the complaint. Critics said DOJ lacks authority to tell Alaska when or how to certify, while DOJ argued intervention was needed to protect the election’s integrity.

Alaska’s Division of Elections identified several ways to reduce confusion without stopping certification. Voters can use information in the Official Election Pamphlet, ask questions of poll workers, or bring other people to assist them when the law permits. These measures address uncertainty at the point of voting rather than changing the election’s certification rules.

The key mechanism is voter guidance. Clear official information can help voters distinguish candidates with similar names. Poll workers can answer questions, and permitted assistants can provide additional help. The department said it was focused on assisting voters and avoiding confusion while giving voters confidence that their votes would count.

The article does not describe a separate ballot-label change or require a new certification procedure. It presents voter information and assistance as practical alternatives. Those steps could reduce mistaken votes while allowing state officials to run the election and certify results under normal processes.

U.S. elections are generally administered and certified by state and local officials. They run voting operations and are charged with certifying the results. This structure makes election administration primarily a state and local responsibility, including decisions about the certification process.

The Justice Department’s usual legal role is narrower. The article says federal law chiefly allows DOJ to safeguard civil rights and prosecute people who violate election law. Private citizens and candidates may sue to challenge ballots or results, but Justin Levitt said no law specifically authorizes DOJ to challenge ballots or delay certification.

That distinction makes the Alaska lawsuit unusual. DOJ says the similarly named candidacy could mislead voters and compromise fairness, invoking the National Voter Registration Act. Critics called the action an unprecedented federal intervention and said it conflicted with department policy. The court’s response could clarify how far DOJ can go in this dispute.