Alaska officials ask judge to deny DOJ’s ‘impossible’ demand to set aside ballots

The Trump administration is asking a federal judge to stop Alaska officials from certifying the Senate election unless Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan wins. Certification is the state’s formal step for finalizing election results, so the request could directly affect how Alaska completes the contest.

The lawsuit argues that Democratic candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign was involved in recruiting Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher with the same name as the incumbent. The administration says that identical name could confuse voters and unfairly divert votes intended for Dan S. Sullivan. Peltola denies involvement.

Alaska officials want the judge to dismiss the lawsuit permanently. They argue that state officials, not the federal government, control certification and that the requested remedy is impossible under ballot secrecy rules. The judge was expected to decide soon whether the case would continue or end.

Two candidates named Dan Sullivan are involved. Dan S. Sullivan is the Republican incumbent senator. Dan J. Sullivan is a retired teacher whose name was approved for the ballot by the Alaska Supreme Court. The shared first and last names create the possibility of voter confusion.

The Trump administration claims Peltola’s campaign helped recruit Dan J. Sullivan to create that confusion. It says voters might intend to support the incumbent but instead select or rank the other Dan Sullivan. Peltola denies the allegation, and a former campaign manager later tried to retract statements cited in a New York Times report.

The dispute is especially important because the race uses ranked ballots, including rankings of Dan J. Sullivan. Alaska officials say they carefully designed the ballot to reduce confusion. The judge must decide whether the alleged confusion justifies federal intervention before certification.

Election certification is the formal process in which election officials confirm that votes have been counted and that the reported result can become official. It is more than announcing early totals. Certification completes the state’s administrative process and identifies the result officials are prepared to recognize.

In this case, Alaska officials are responsible for ballot counting and certification. The Trump administration’s lawsuit asks the judge to prevent certification unless Dan S. Sullivan is declared the winner. That would place a condition on the state’s normal process before the result is finalized.

Certification matters because it lets officials conclude the election under the state’s procedures. Alaska officials argue that election certification is left to the states and that federal intervention is unwarranted. They asked the judge to dismiss the case and allow counting and certification to proceed without that interference.

If the judge ordered Alaska officials not to certify the results unless Dan S. Sullivan won, the state could be blocked from completing certification if he lost. The order would tie the election’s official conclusion to one candidate’s victory rather than allowing the state’s normal process to proceed.

For example, if Peltola were the candidate identified as the winner, officials could still count ballots but might be unable to certify that result. The Trump administration’s lawsuit specifically asks that the race not be certified unless Dan S. Sullivan is declared the winner. Alaska officials describe that requested relief as inappropriate and not even possible.

The immediate effect could be delay and federal involvement in Alaska’s election administration. The article does not say that a new election would occur or that ballots would be discarded. It says Alaska officials want the lawsuit dismissed so counting and certification can continue.

Alaska officials argue that the federal government lacks a proper legal basis to stop the state from certifying its election. Their filing says election certification is left to the states. In their view, the Trump administration has not shown why a federal court should keep entertaining the lawsuit.

The officials point to Alaska’s own election decisions. The Alaska Supreme Court approved Dan J. Sullivan’s name for the ballot months earlier. State officials also said they carefully designed the ballot to minimize confusion. Those facts support their argument that Alaska, rather than federal officials, should administer the contest.

Their requested outcome is immediate dismissal with prejudice. They want state officials to count ballots and certify the general election without federal interference. The judge was expected to decide soon whether to dismiss the lawsuit or allow it to continue, making the standing dispute central to the case’s future.

Ballot secrecy means officials must protect the connection between a voter and that voter’s choices. Alaska officials say the Justice Department’s proposal to segregate ballots ranking Dan J. Sullivan does not respect that requirement. They call the idea unexplained, disturbing, and impossible.

The officials acknowledge that it may be easy to identify ballots ranking Daniel J. They do not accept that this solves the problem. Separating those ballots would not reveal the voter’s identity in a useful or lawful way, and treating them differently could interfere with the secret-ballot system. The filing says the requested relief is incompatible with voters’ vital right to secrecy.

The dispute shows why the remedy matters as much as the allegation. Alaska officials want the judge to dismiss the lawsuit rather than create a special ballot-handling process. They argue that counting and certification should continue under state procedures, without the federal government’s proposed segregation plan.

The article refers to voters ranking candidates but does not explain ranked-choice voting’s full mechanics. In the standard system, voters mark a first choice, then a second, third, and possibly later choices. If no candidate wins under the applicable rule, the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated and those ballots move to the next available preference.

For example, a ballot might rank Dan J. Sullivan first and another candidate second. If Dan J. Sullivan is eliminated, that ballot can count for its next listed candidate. A ballot that ranks candidates in a different order may transfer differently. That makes the position of each name important, not just whether the name appears somewhere on the ballot.

The article says officials were concerned about ballots that rank Dan J. Sullivan. The Trump administration argues identical names could divert intended votes. Alaska officials say the ballot was designed to reduce confusion, while defending normal counting and certification.