Dan Sullivan vs Dan Sullivan: Why is Trump’s DOJ suing in Alaska?

The Justice Department is suing Alaska because two candidates with nearly identical names are running for Senate. It says voters might accidentally choose Daniel J Sullivan Jr instead of Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan. The department wants safeguards before Alaska certifies a close result.

The proposed trigger is specific: if Senator Sullivan loses by fewer votes than the other Sullivan receives, certification would be blocked temporarily. The department would then investigate whether voters were confused and selected the wrong candidate. Its lawsuit cites the National Voter Registration Act.

The case is unusual because Alaska’s Supreme Court already allowed both candidates to remain on the ballot. The ballot distinguishes them by listing the incumbent as “Sullivan, Dan S” and the other as “Sullivan, Daniel J Jr.” Experts disagree about the lawsuit’s strength and whether confusion could actually affect the outcome.

The incumbent Dan S Sullivan has served in the Senate since first winning election in 2014. He previously worked as Alaska’s attorney general and commissioner of natural resources, and he is seeking a third six-year term.

Daniel J Sullivan Jr is a retired elementary schoolteacher and former US Forest Service employee from Petersburg. He registered as a Republican, but he entered the race without a party designation on the ballot. His candidacy led Republicans to accuse him of confusing voters, which he denied.

The ballot lists the incumbent as “Sullivan, Dan S (Registered Republican) Incumbent.” It lists the other candidate as “Sullivan, Daniel J Jr.” Alaska’s courts allowed Daniel J Sullivan Jr to remain after election officials initially disqualified him. One expert called the ballot extremely clear, while another said confusion could still matter.

The lawsuit targets a narrow election scenario rather than every possible result. The Justice Department wants Alaska prevented from certifying the winner if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan loses by fewer votes than his namesake receives.

For example, if Daniel J Sullivan Jr collects more votes than Senator Sullivan’s losing margin, the department could argue that some voters intended to support the incumbent but selected the other Sullivan. It wants time to investigate possible voter confusion and mistaken choices before the result becomes final.

The lawsuit does not itself establish that confusion occurred. Alaska’s Supreme Court has already ruled that both candidates may appear on the ballot. Experts disagree about the risk: Forrest Nabors said similar names could affect a close race, while Glenn Wright questioned whether the lawsuit understands Alaska’s election system.

Alaska’s November 3 Senate election has four candidates: Republican incumbent Dan S Sullivan, Democrat Mary Peltola, Daniel J Sullivan Jr, and Gerald Heikes. The race is competitive despite Alaska’s traditional Republican lean in presidential elections.

The same four candidates advanced from the primary. Peltola received 49.5 percent of the primary vote, while Senator Sullivan received about 41 percent. Alaska’s system sends the four leading primary candidates to the general election regardless of party.

This structure differs from a conventional party-based primary. It allowed both Sullivans to proceed to November, along with Peltola and Heikes. The result created the unusual possibility that two candidates sharing the Sullivan name could influence a close Senate contest, especially if voters mistakenly select the wrong one.

Ranked-choice voting lets voters list candidates in order, such as first choice, second choice, and beyond. Alaska uses this system for its Senate election, rather than asking voters to select only one candidate.

If nobody wins more than 50 percent of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Ballots supporting that candidate are then transferred to the next-ranked candidate still competing. Eliminations and transfers continue until two candidates remain, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

Alaska first advances four candidates from its primary, regardless of party. In the Senate race, that means voters rank among four finalists. Glenn Wright said ranked-choice voting is intended to prevent a smaller candidate from acting as a spoiler by splitting support and changing the result.

Under Alaska’s ranked-choice system, selecting Daniel J Sullivan Jr first does not necessarily remove a ballot from the contest. If he receives the fewest votes and is eliminated, the ballot moves to the voter’s next-ranked candidate who remains in the race.

For example, a voter might mistakenly choose Daniel J Sullivan Jr first but rank Senator Dan Sullivan second. If the other Sullivan is eliminated, that ballot can transfer to the incumbent. The vote would then support Senator Sullivan in the next counting round rather than disappearing.

This mechanism may limit the effect of confusion between the two names. It does not guarantee that every mistaken vote helps the incumbent, because voters may rank someone else second or leave later preferences blank. Alaska’s system is designed to reduce the spoiler effect, but experts still disagree about possible confusion.

In the United States, state governments generally administer elections, including ballots, voting procedures, and certification. The federal government does not normally run each state’s election. It can, however, pass laws governing federal elections and enforce protections for voters and candidates.

Federal courts provide a forum for disputes involving federal law or constitutional rights. They may review whether election officials followed those requirements and can issue orders while a case proceeds. In this case, the Justice Department sued Alaska in federal court and cited the National Voter Registration Act.

The article describes the intervention as unusual. Forrest Nabors said federal action might be justified if an election were administered unfairly. Glenn Wright questioned the lawsuit’s basis and said it might misunderstand Alaska’s system. The court’s response could determine whether certification is delayed under the department’s proposed conditions.