The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that a second candidate named Dan Sullivan must be allowed to appear on the ballot in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race, rejecting state election officials’ effort to disqualify him over concerns his candidacy was intended to confuse voters.
The decision carries national implications as Republicans defend a narrow Senate majority, and Alaska is expected to be among the handful of races that could determine control of the chamber. Republicans, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have argued the second Dan Sullivan could siphon votes from incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.
Recommended Stories
In a brief order issued hours after oral arguments, the court affirmed a lower court ruling requiring retired Petersburg teacher Dan J. Sullivan to be restored to the August primary ballot.
The justices also directed the Division of Elections to determine how the challenger should appear on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.” Chief Justice Susan Carney said a fuller opinion will follow.
The Division of Elections removed the challenger from the ballot earlier this month after concluding he filed in bad faith to mislead voters by sharing the incumbent’s name and party affiliation. On Friday, Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled the division had “abused its discretion,” finding its decision was not based on the constitutional qualifications for serving in the Senate or Alaska election law.
During Monday’s arguments, several justices questioned why the division chose what Carney called “the most extreme remedy possible” instead of distinguishing the candidates by their middle initials or other identifiers.
Representing the state, attorney Christopher Murray argued officials were justified because the challenger initially identified himself as “Dan S. Sullivan” before correcting his middle initial.
“That’s not an innocent mistake, or random mistake,” Murray told the court.
The state Supreme Court did not decide how the two candidates will be listed. The division has argued middle initials alone would still confuse voters and proposed identifying the challenger as “Sullivan, Daniel James Jr. (Nonpartisan),” a change his attorney, Jeffrey Robinson, argued exceeds the state’s legal authority.
Alaska matters greatly for determining whether Republicans maintain or lose control of the Senate in the midterm elections. As Democrats seek to win back control of the Senate, they have sunk millions of dollars into Democratic challenger Mary Peltola, while Republicans see the prospects of a second candidate with the same name as the incumbent as a spoiler for the sitting Republican senator.
The case also drew friend-of-the-court briefs from 15 Republican-led states as well as the conservative Honest Elections Project, which argued the dispute was about protecting “the integrity, reliability, fairness, and neutrality of the ballot itself, not any candidate’s fitness to serve.”
The Division of Elections has said it must begin preparing ballots Tuesday, leaving officials little time to decide how the second Dan Sullivan’s name will appear.
JUDGE RULES DAN SULLIVAN CAN APPEAR ON ALASKA PRIMARY BALLOT AGAINST SEN. DAN SULLIVAN
Jason Snead, executive director of HEP, argued the decision is allowing “‘Decoy Dan’s’ deception campaign” to unfold across the state, though he said the silver lining is that the court left room for state officials to “clearly mark this imposter candidate in a way that distinguishes him from the sitting senator whose supporters he seems intent on deceiving.”
“That is the bare minimum the integrity of our elections demands, and I applaud Alaska election officials for taking this issue incredibly seriously,” Snead added.
