Peltola campaign aides, DSCC officials helped recruit second Dan Sullivan in Alaska race: NYT

The New York Times reported that people working with Mary Peltola’s campaign and senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee participated in efforts to recruit Daniel J. Sullivan for Alaska’s Senate race. The alleged goal was to draw votes away from incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and improve Peltola’s chances.

The effort reportedly went beyond one candidate. The Times, citing interviews, texts and documents prepared for a possible lawsuit, said the group tried to coax other would-be “spoilers” into the race. Peltola’s former campaign manager Elisa Rios said Peltola was aware of the project but not directly involved.

Peltola’s campaign and the DSCC denied participating. Their statements said the campaign had no involvement with either Sullivan campaign, while the DSCC said it was not involved with Dan J. Sullivan. The report matters because the two Sullivans appeared together on the ballot, prompting a Justice Department lawsuit over possible voter confusion.

A spoiler candidate is a candidate whose presence can change an election’s outcome by attracting votes from a stronger contender. The spoiler may have little chance of winning, but the votes they receive can prevent a major candidate from reaching first place. That makes the tactic especially important in a close contest.

In Alaska’s Senate race, the reported strategy involved recruiting Daniel J. Sullivan because his name resembled incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan’s name. The Times also reported efforts to encourage other potential spoilers to enter. If voters supported the non-incumbent Sullivan instead of the incumbent, the Republican’s total could fall while Peltola’s share remained unchanged.

The article says ballot-stacking tactics are common and generally considered legal. However, the Justice Department alleged that the non-incumbent Sullivan’s campaign was designed to act as a spoiler because of voter confusion. The dispute could affect certification of the result and has triggered federal litigation before Election Day.

Two candidates with the same surname can create confusion when voters recognize only the last name or read the ballot quickly. That confusion could send votes intended for incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan to Daniel J. Sullivan, the non-incumbent candidate. The problem matters because a small number of misplaced votes could affect a close Senate contest.

The ballot lists Daniel J. Sullivan as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” with no other words next to his name. Directly below, it lists the senator as “Sullivan, Dan. S.” followed by “Registered Republican, incumbent.” Their positions and similar names could make it harder for some voters to distinguish them.

The Justice Department asked the court to address votes that may have been affected by confusion. Alaska officials responded that the Division of Elections had taken significant steps to distinguish the candidates. Whether the result can be certified may depend on how the court evaluates that alleged confusion.

Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system lets voters rank candidates by preference rather than choosing only one. If no candidate wins the required majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The system then examines those ballots and transfers each vote to the voter’s next preferred candidate who remains in the race.

For example, if a voter ranks Daniel J. Sullivan first and Peltola second, that ballot would move to Peltola if Daniel J. Sullivan were eliminated. If the voter listed no further choice, the ballot would not transfer. The same process can repeat after later eliminations.

The article identifies Alaska as a ranked-choice state but ends before explaining the transfer process. This description uses established knowledge of Alaska’s system. The practical implication is that a spoiler may affect not only first-choice totals, but also where transferred votes go after that candidate leaves the contest.

The Alaska race could determine which party controls the entire U.S. Senate because the article says its winner may decide whether Democrats regain a majority or Republicans retain their current majority. When control is that close, one additional Senate seat can determine which party holds the chamber’s governing power.

The contest includes incumbent Republican Dan S. Sullivan, Democrat Mary Peltola and two other candidates, including Daniel J. Sullivan. The Justice Department’s lawsuit focuses on whether confusion between the two Sullivans could affect the result. If those votes change who wins Alaska, they could also change the Senate’s party balance.

Control of the Senate matters beyond this one state. It affects which party organizes the chamber and controls its legislative agenda. The article does not detail every consequence, but it makes the central stakes clear: Alaska’s result could decide national political control after the election.

The Justice Department asked federal Judge Sharon Gleason to block certification of any Alaska Senate result that may have been affected by voter confusion. It wants an investigation to determine whether votes for Daniel J. Sullivan were actually intended for incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. The request could delay final recognition of a winner.

The department filed its lawsuit days before the Times report. It alleged that the non-incumbent Sullivan’s campaign was geared toward making him a spoiler because voters might confuse the two candidates. The court therefore faces both an election-administration question and a dispute over whether the result can be trusted without further review.

Alaska officials asked Gleason to dismiss the case before Election Day. They argued that the Justice Department lacks authority to intervene in state elections, especially in support of a favored candidate. They also said the lawsuit and requested relief cast a cloud over Alaska’s election, while state officials maintained that ballot labels distinguish the candidates.

A U.S. senator represents a state in the Senate and takes part in national lawmaking. Senators introduce, debate and vote on legislation. They also perform an important checking role by voting on many presidential appointments. The article does not explain these duties directly, so this answer uses established knowledge about the Senate.

Winning one Senate seat gives a party an additional vote in the chamber. If the seat changes the majority, that party gains control over the Senate’s organization, agenda and committee work. A majority can make it easier to advance its bills and decide which proposals receive consideration.

Senate control also matters for presidential appointments because the chamber votes on whether many nominees take office. The Alaska race is therefore larger than a contest between two Sullivans and Mary Peltola. As the article states, its outcome could determine whether Democrats regain the majority or Republicans retain theirs, affecting national decisions.