Two Dan Sullivans, one Senate seat? Trump wants Alaska vote on hold if… | Unusual executive order explained

The Trump administration is challenging Alaska’s Senate election because Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan shares a nearly identical name with Daniel J Sullivan, another candidate. The Justice Department argues that voters could have selected the wrong candidate, making the result potentially unfair. It wants certification blocked if Dan Sullivan loses and might have won without that confusion.

The department is asking a federal court to delay certification while officials investigate whether votes for Daniel J Sullivan were intended for the senator. It cites the National Voter Registration Act and says election integrity justifies federal intervention. The race matters because Democrats hope to gain control of the Senate and need four additional seats.

The legal theory faces serious questions. Election law experts called the lawsuit unusual and meritless, while emphasizing Alaska’s authority over election administration and certification. Secret ballots also make mistaken choices difficult to prove. Judge Sharon L. Gleason is handling the case, but no immediate emergency ruling had been requested.

Dan S. Sullivan is Alaska’s Republican incumbent senator and is running against Democratic candidate Mary Peltola. Daniel J Sullivan is a retired elementary-school teacher from Petersburg, Alaska. He is registered as a Republican, but election officials list him without a party affiliation, while the incumbent is labeled “Registered Republican” and “incumbent.”

The similarity could cause a voter intending to support the senator to select the teacher instead. Republicans argue that this could divert votes from the incumbent and possibly affect the election’s result. The Justice Department says voters might rank the wrong Sullivan or fail to rank the senator under Alaska’s voting system.

Daniel J Sullivan denies trying to mislead voters. He said he hoped voters were informed enough to distinguish an incumbent senator from a teacher. Because ballots are secret, officials would struggle to determine afterward which Sullivan each voter actually intended to support.

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to list candidates in order of preference. Alaska first counts each candidate’s first-choice votes. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The process continues through additional rounds until one candidate emerges as the winner.

For example, a voter could rank Dan S. Sullivan first and Daniel J Sullivan second, or reverse those rankings. If one Sullivan is eliminated, that candidate’s votes transfer according to the next preferences recorded on the ballots. Those transfers can change the standings and determine the final winner.

The system may reduce the effect of confusion between the two Sullivans, but it cannot eliminate every problem. The Justice Department argues that voters could rank the wrong candidate or fail to rank the incumbent. Alaska officials expect tabulation to begin November 18, after overseas ballots arrive.

Alaska’s Senate race matters beyond the state because Democrats are seeking control of the chamber. The article says they need four additional seats and identifies Alaska as one of the Republican-held states they hope to flip. That makes even one Alaska seat potentially important to the national balance of power.

The contest pits Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan against Democrat Mary Peltola and Daniel J Sullivan. A small number of votes could therefore matter nationally if the race is close. The similar names have intensified concern that votes intended for the incumbent could go to the other Sullivan.

The exact national consequence depends on results in Alaska and other states. The Justice Department’s lawsuit reflects the race’s importance, but it does not establish that confusion changed the outcome. Ranked-choice tabulation is expected to begin November 18, after overseas ballots arrive, while the legal challenge remains pending.

If a court delays certification, Alaska officials could be prevented from formally confirming the Senate winner while the alleged name confusion is examined. The Justice Department seeks to investigate whether votes for Daniel J Sullivan were actually intended for incumbent Dan S. Sullivan. The article does not say that a recount or a new election would automatically follow.

A blocked certification could prolong uncertainty in a race that may help determine Senate control. Officials would face the difficult task of assessing voter intent after ballots were cast. Because votes are secret, experts say it may be impossible to measure how many people selected the wrong Sullivan.

The case could also clarify whether federal courts may intervene in state-run election certification this way. Election law experts question the Justice Department’s legal basis and argue that Alaska controls election administration. Judge Sharon L. Gleason has the case, and no emergency request had been made when the report was published.

The central problem is that a completed ballot records a choice, not the voter’s private intention. If someone marked Daniel J Sullivan while believing they were choosing incumbent Dan S. Sullivan, officials generally could not identify that mistake from the ballot itself. The two names would appear as separate selections.

Ranked-choice voting makes the question even more complicated. A voter might rank both Sullivans, place one first, or leave the incumbent unranked. Officials would need to know what the voter intended, not merely how the rankings were recorded. The Justice Department argues these mistakes could benefit Democrat Mary Peltola.

Derek Muller, a Notre Dame Law School professor, said measuring such errors after the fact would be impossible. The lawsuit asks officials to investigate, but the article gives no reliable method for doing so. That evidentiary problem is one reason experts doubt the court will accept the administration’s request.

In the United States, election administration and certification are generally handled by state officials. In this case, Alaska election officials placed candidates on the ballot, and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that Daniel J Sullivan could remain there. Alaska officials also control the state’s ranked-choice tabulation and certification process.

The federal government’s role is different. The Justice Department is using a federal lawsuit and citing the National Voter Registration Act. It argues that protecting election integrity gives federal authorities grounds to intervene if voter confusion affected the result. The administration wants a federal court to block or delay certification.

The dispute centers on the boundary between these responsibilities. Vanita Gupta called the lawsuit meritless and said election administration and certification belong to Alaska. Derek Muller also questioned the department’s interpretation of federal law. The court’s response could shape how federal officials challenge state election procedures in similar situations.