DOJ Seeks to Separate Ballots in Alaska Senate Race Over Name Confusion

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked a federal court to preserve and separate all ballots that rank a candidate named Dan Sullivan in Alaska’s upcoming U.S. Senate election. This request is part of an ongoing investigation into whether voters mistakenly ranked the retired schoolteacher Dan Sullivan instead of incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan.

The DOJ’s filing, submitted late Friday to U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason, seeks to prevent state election officials from certifying the Senate race results immediately if the incumbent loses by a margin that could be linked to confusion between the two candidates. The case highlights concerns about voter intent and election integrity before the November 3, 2026, midterm election.

Michael J. Heyman, the U.S. Attorney for Alaska, emphasized the urgency of the matter, stating, "Election Day is on November 3, 2026, which poses a substantial risk that the candidacy before us will mislead voters and ultimately result in an electoral process that lacks integrity." He added that the DOJ must take precautionary steps now, as it would be impossible to do so after the election.

Earlier on Friday, Heyman spoke at a press conference in Anchorage where he confirmed an active criminal investigation into how and why the retired schoolteacher decided to enter the Senate race for the first time this year. The DOJ alleges that this candidacy was orchestrated solely to siphon votes from the incumbent Senator Sullivan, thereby benefiting the Democratic nominee Mary Peltola.

Heyman noted that both civil and criminal probes are underway, with significant FBI resources dedicated to the case. He assured the public that every Alaskan deserves a fair election and that the DOJ is committed to protecting that principle. Notably, Heyman had previously recused himself from the investigation due to a potential judicial nomination but resumed involvement after that consideration ended.

The DOJ’s lawsuit claims that aides to Peltola’s campaign and senior staff at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee helped recruit the retired teacher to run, aiming to reduce votes for the Republican incumbent. Peltola’s campaign and the DSCC have denied any involvement in the retired teacher’s candidacy.

When pressed by reporters, Heyman declined to specify which criminal laws might have been violated in connection with the case.

On the legal front, Judge Gleason has kept proceedings on a fast track. She ordered the DOJ to respond by 1 p.m. Alaska Time to motions seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, motions that were newly filed after the DOJ amended its complaint to add a claim under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause alongside the initial claim under the National Voter Registration Act.

State election officials, Peltola’s campaign, and other parties involved argue that the DOJ lacks the authority to block certification based solely on two candidates sharing a similar name. They maintain that the National Voter Registration Act does not apply to this case, as it pertains to voter registration rather than election certification or candidate confusion.

The outcome of Alaska’s Senate election holds national significance because it could determine control of the U.S. Senate next year. Currently, Republicans hold 53 seats in the 100-member Senate. Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system adds complexity to the race. If no candidate wins more than 50 percent of the initial vote, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed based on voters’ alternate preferences. Only Peltola and Senator Sullivan are widely expected to receive significant vote shares.

This lawsuit seeks to delay certifying the election if Senator Sullivan’s loss might be influenced by voters confusing him with the other Dan Sullivan listed as Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot. The case underscores broader concerns about how ballot design and candidate names can impact voter decisions, especially in a close and consequential race.

As Election Day approaches, the federal court’s rulings on the DOJ’s motions will shape how Alaska’s election results are handled and whether additional scrutiny will be applied to the ballots. The case reflects growing attention to election integrity and potential tactics aimed at influencing voter behavior through candidate recruitment and ballot placement.