United States v. State of Alaska
Overview
Overview
A Justice Department lawsuit, filed days before the 2026 election, asking a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate result if that result is impacted by voter confusion from a second candidate named Sullivan. The government says Daniel J. Sullivan's presence on the ballot is a frivolous candidacy that could distort Alaska's ranked-choice outcome. No court has ruled, and the State has not yet responded.
The Facts
The Facts
On October 22, 2026, the United States sued the State of Alaska, Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, the State's Election Boards, and the State Ballot Counting Review Board in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, before Judge Sharon L. Gleason. The November 2026 Senate race features Republican incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan and Democrat Mary Peltola. In May 2026 a second candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan, who had never run for office, filed for the same seat. The Alaska Division of Elections determined his candidacy was filed to confuse or mislead voters, but the Alaska Supreme Court summarily affirmed a trial court ruling that the Division erred in excluding him, with a full opinion to follow, so he appears on the ballot. In the August 28 top-four primary, Peltola received 49.5 percent, Senator Sullivan 41.4 percent, Daniel J. Sullivan 2.5 percent, and Gerald Heikes 1.1 percent. The general election is conducted by ranked-choice voting.
The Issue
Issue
Whether certifying an Alaska Senate result impacted by voter confusion from Daniel J. Sullivan's inclusion on the ballot would violate the State's duty under the National Voter Registration Act to protect the integrity of the electoral process, and whether a federal court should enjoin certification pending an investigation into whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were intended for Senator Sullivan.
The Rules
Rule
The National Voter Registration Act states that one of its purposes is to protect the integrity of the electoral process, 52 U.S.C. section 20501(b)(3), and it authorizes the Attorney General to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief necessary to carry out the statute, 52 U.S.C. section 20510(a). The United States relies on Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972), for the view that keeping frivolous candidacies off the ballot serves a state's interest in electoral integrity. Alaska conducts its general election by ranked-choice voting, and the Director of Elections certifies the winner after the state ballot-counting review. These are the legal premises the United States invokes, which the court has not adopted.
The Application
Analysis
The United States contends that because the Alaska Supreme Court placed Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot and the Division of Elections had already determined his candidacy was filed to confuse or mislead, the only way to protect the integrity of the result is to keep certification from being impacted by voter confusion. It argues there is a realistic chance that, even if a majority of Alaskans wish to vote for Senator Sullivan, Daniel J. Sullivan's presence could shift the ranked-choice outcome to Peltola. On that basis the government asks the court to declare that certifying such a result would violate the National Voter Registration Act, and to enjoin the defendants from certifying any result that may be impacted by voter confusion pending an investigation into whether votes for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant for Senator Sullivan. The defendants have not yet responded on this docket, and the court has not ruled. The posture is notable, because the Alaska Supreme Court has already held that the Division erred in excluding Daniel J. Sullivan and its full opinion is still pending.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
As of filing, this is a complaint with no court ruling. The United States seeks an extraordinary remedy, a federal order restraining a state from certifying a U.S. Senate election result it says may be distorted by a confusingly named candidate the State's own highest court allowed onto the ballot. The State of Alaska has not yet answered and Judge Gleason has not acted. This page will be updated as the case proceeds.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support