Five days before Election Day, the most talked-about Senate race in America is not about a policy fight. It is about a name. Alaska’s November ballot lists two men named Dan Sullivan: the Republican incumbent, Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, and a retired teacher, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., running with no party label. A New York Times report published Wednesday alleges that people working with Democratic nominee Mary Peltola’s campaign, along with senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, helped recruit the second Sullivan. Within a day, the story had pulled in the president, the vice president, the Justice Department, Alaska’s governor and a House committee chairman.
It deserves careful attention, because it raises a real question about fair elections. It also deserves care in the telling, because much of it is still unproven.
What has been reported
The Times said its account was based on 12 sources and dozens of text messages, and it described the recruiting effort as a “ballot composition project.” The paper’s most explosive source, former Peltola campaign manager Elisa Rios, who was fired in August, told the Times that Peltola was “definitely aware” of the effort. Rios later retracted all of her statements, according to NBC News. Readers should weigh that retraction heavily.
The denials are categorical. Peltola’s campaign said it “has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign,” and the DSCC said it was “not involved with Dan J. Sullivan,” ABC News reported. Speaking in Juneau, Peltola said, according to the Associated Press, “I knew nothing about any other candidate on the ballot except for me and the incumbent,” adding that she is “not interested in tricking voters.” The second Sullivan has said he ran of his own accord, NBC reported.
The stakes are concrete. In Alaska’s August top-four primary, Peltola took 49.5%, Sen. Sullivan 41.4% and Daniel J. Sullivan 2.5%, according to ABC. In a ranked-choice general election that could be close, a few thousand confused votes could decide who wins a seat that may help decide control of the Senate.
The legal state of play
So far, no court has found anything illegal. Alaska courts allowed the challenger’s candidacy, and the Alaska Supreme Court ordered his name onto the ballot. The state Department of Law has said ballot placement is a matter of state law, ABC reported.
The federal government has moved aggressively anyway. The Justice Department has sued to block certification of results “that may be impacted by voter confusion,” CNBC reported, and President Trump has said he ordered the suit. U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason has sounded skeptical of the case. According to NBC News, the department has issued at least three dozen subpoenas and preservation requests, and a grand jury issued subpoenas as early as August. Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered the Alaska Department of Public Safety to investigate, saying, “The evidence will determine what happens next.” House Oversight Chairman James Comer has requested transcribed interviews with Rios and Democratic operative Jerid Kurtz.
Election lawyers note an important distinction. Stephen Richer, the former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, told NBC that recruiting a candidate is probably legal unless it involves “inducement, like money or threats.” NBC noted that the Times reported no evidence of coercion. If that remains the case, the episode may end up as a scandal of ethics and judgment rather than a crime.
The rhetoric is running ahead of the facts
Political leaders have not waited for investigators. At a rally in Rock Hill, South Carolina, President Trump called it “voter fraud at the highest level” and said Peltola “should be removed from the ballot and prosecuted, and so should the fake Dan Sullivan,” the Guardian reported. Asked whether Peltola should be seated if she wins, he said, “You’re going to have to see what happens.” Vice President JD Vance said, “we should certainly look into whether she committed election fraud.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune called the scheme “unprecedented,” and Sen. Sullivan described it as “a secret operation” to “trick Alaskans,” NBC reported. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the alleged effort was “simply wrong,” per the Guardian.
Murkowski has it right, and so do the conservatives who are outraged. If a party deliberately recruited a namesake to confuse voters, that is a cynical attack on the voter’s ability to make an informed choice. It deserves condemnation from both parties. Democrats who spent years warning about threats to democracy should be the first to say so plainly. Look-alike and name-alike candidates are an old trick in American politics, and they are wrong no matter which side uses them.
But conservatives should be equally plain about the other half of the principle. Due process applies to political opponents too. Peltola has not been charged with anything. The key witness has retracted her statements. No court has ruled the second candidacy unlawful. Calling for a candidate to be “prosecuted” before an investigation is finished, or suggesting that a winning candidate might not be seated, abandons the rule-of-law standard conservatives rightly demand when the shoe is on the other foot. Federal efforts to block certification of a state election are a serious step, and they should rest on evidence, not on a newspaper story.
What should happen now
First, let the investigations run, and let them run in the right venues. Alaska’s state investigators and courts are the primary authorities over Alaska’s ballot. Any federal case should be brought only if the facts support a specific federal charge, and it should be argued in court, not at rallies.
Second, help voters now. Alaska election officials and both campaigns can make sure every voter knows the candidates apart: the incumbent appears as “Dan S. Sullivan,” the Republican, and the challenger as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” with no party. Clear voter guides, signage at polling places and plain public notices do far more to protect the election than lawsuits filed days before it.
Third, fix the rules for next time. Legislatures can require ballots to show party, occupation or hometown when candidates share a surname. They can also give election officials clear authority to add identifying details. Those are neutral, durable reforms that protect voters no matter which party tries the trick.
Finally, count the votes and certify the result under the law. If an investigation later proves wrongdoing, the law provides penalties for the people responsible. What it does not provide is a shortcut around the voters. Republicans can win this argument on the merits by insisting on both halves of the principle: no tricks on the ballot, and no shortcuts around due process.
