Attorneys for Alaska say 'meritless' Trump demand to set aside Senate ballots 'not even possible'

The Justice Department asked U.S. District Court Judge Sharon L. Gleason to halt certification of a possible Democratic win by Mary Peltola in Alaska’s Senate race. That would prevent state officials from completing the election process while the court considered whether voters were confused by another candidate named Sullivan.

The administration later added a more specific request. It wanted every ballot showing a vote for the second Dan Sullivan separated from other ballots. Officials said this would allow investigators to determine whether voters mistakenly supported a spoiler candidate instead of Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.

Alaska’s state government called the lawsuit meritless and urged immediate dismissal. It said separating ballots was impossible without violating voter privacy. The dispute matters because the race could help determine which party controls the U.S. Senate, while the state argues federal officials are improperly interfering with election administration.

Election certification is the formal process in which election officials confirm the vote count and declare the result official. It follows ballot counting and allows the winning candidate to be recognized through the state’s legal election process. Certification does not simply recount votes; it completes the state’s administrative work.

In this case, Alaska officials were preparing to conduct ballot counting and certification. The Justice Department asked Judge Sharon L. Gleason to stop that process if Mary Peltola appeared to win. Without certification, the state could not formally finalize the Senate result or move normally toward recognizing Peltola as the victor.

The delay could continue while the court examined claims about voter confusion and the second Sullivan candidate. Alaska argued that federal intervention was unwarranted and asked the judge to dismiss the case with prejudice. The dispute therefore concerns both timing and who controls the election’s final legal steps.

The ballot included two candidates whose names could lead voters to notice the same surname: Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan and another candidate identified as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. The second candidate was a retired school teacher from Petersburg, a remote fishing village.

Alaska officials said the ballot did not present the two candidates identically. The senator was labeled both “Republican” and “incumbent.” The other appeared simply as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” Those distinctions were part of the state’s effort to minimize confusion before voters marked their choices.

The similarity nevertheless became central to the federal lawsuit. The Justice Department argued that voters might have been fooled into supporting the second Sullivan as a spoiler candidate. Alaska responded that the second candidate met all legal requirements and that the Alaska Supreme Court had ruled this summer that he could remain on the ballot.

Shared surnames can create confusion because voters may focus on a familiar name while scanning a crowded ballot. A voter who intended to support Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan could potentially notice “Sullivan” first and overlook the other candidate’s different first name, party information, or lack of an incumbent label.

The two listings were not identical. Dan Sullivan was identified as a Republican and the incumbent. The other was listed as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” Alaska officials said they had carefully designed the ballot to minimize confusion, but the Justice Department argued that voters might still have been fooled into wasting votes on a spoiler candidate.

That concern became the basis for seeking a certification pause and separate handling of ballots. The state rejected the approach, noting that the second candidate legally qualified and that the Alaska Supreme Court had allowed him to stay on the ballot.

A court order to separate every ballot for the second Dan Sullivan could disrupt the normal count and delay certification. Officials would need to identify which ballots contained that choice, then hold them apart while investigators examined whether voters intended to support the Republican incumbent or another candidate.

The state said this request was “both disturbing and impossible.” Ballots are designed to keep individual voters’ choices private. If officials could link a particular ballot, or its handling, to a specific voter, that could expose confidential political choices. Alaska therefore argued that separating the ballots could not be done without violating voter privacy.

The broader election could remain unsettled while those ballots were isolated. The Justice Department sought that step as part of its fraud concerns, but Alaska asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit and let state officials count and certify the election. The outcome could affect a Senate race important to party control.

Alaska’s state government normally manages the election, including ballot counting and certification. In this dispute, state officials urged the federal judge to let them complete those duties without interference. Alaska’s Republican governor, Mike Dunleavy, separately announced a state probe after reports about the second Sullivan’s recruitment.

The Trump administration relies on a different theory of authority. It argues that a preamble to a 1990s law governing voter registration gives the federal government responsibility for ensuring that states maintain the integrity of federal elections. The Justice Department says this supports its intervention in the Senate race.

Alaska rejected that interpretation in its Saturday filing. It argued that federal officials cannot use a few words about “election integrity” to block certification and control the state’s election machinery. The judge’s decision on dismissal would help define whether the lawsuit proceeds and how much power federal officials have in this election.

Ranked-choice voting lets voters list candidates in order of preference rather than choosing only one. If no candidate has enough support to win, the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated, and those ballots move to the voters’ next listed choice. This process repeats until a candidate wins under the system’s rules. The article itself does not explain these mechanics, but it identifies the second Sullivan as a possible spoiler.

In this race, a voter intending to support Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan might instead choose Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. because the surname looked familiar. Those votes could give the second candidate more support and reduce the incumbent’s total in the initial count. Later rankings could then transfer, depending on what affected voters marked.

The possible effect is why the Justice Department sought to isolate ballots for the second Sullivan. The article does not establish how many votes were affected or whether the second candidate changed the outcome. It reports only that the race could determine Senate control.