The Alaska House Judicial and State Affairs Committees held a joint meeting today to discuss the removal of US Senate candidate Daniel J. Sullivan from the primary ballot.
The proceedings were polite, even cordial, though the Democrats and Republicans had very strong opposing views of what has happened. I think the easiest way for the reader, is for me to break this down into several big questions:
Let's look at these one at a time.
I think the answer is pretty clear: No it was not legal to remove him from the ballot.
The Democrats and the three witnesses all repeatedly pointed out that there are only three qualifications to be a US Senate candidate. They are listed in the US Constitution.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]
Basically
- at least 30 years old
- a US citizen for at least nine years
- an inhabitant of the state when elected
That's it. Nothing else matters because the US Constitution trumps all other laws or regulations. NOTE: this applies to US Senate and US House races, not to state offices.
The Republicans made the case that Daniel J. Sullivan was not a serious candidate, that his intent was to mislead and confuse the voters. They implied, but I didn't hear them say directly, that this was an attempt to steal votes from US Senator Dan Sullivan.
They cited the state administrative code AAC 25.212 - Appearance of candidate's name on the ballot
Specifically they cited the part of the code that says:
(b) A candidate's name may not appear on a ballot . . . (2) in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.
Thus, they argue, the Division Director had no choice but to remove his name, because it was confusing and misleading.
All three witnesses and the Democratic members pointed out that thte Administrative Code did not supersede the US Constitution.
They pointed out cases where other candidates were not removed from ballot. They particularly focused on Eric Hafner, who ran for US House in Alaska in 2024, even though he had never been in Alaska, and was serving a 20 year sentence in a New York prison.
The Democrats challenged his name being on the ballot (he was listed as a Democrat). They argued that he was not and would not be an Alaskan inhabitant when elected. The Supreme Court ruled that there was a possibility he would be paroled if he won and he was left on the ballot.
Intent was not an issue, but rather whether he met the Constitutioal requirements. In that case, the Republicans wanted him on the ballot in hopes that he would syphon off votes from the Democratic US Rep. Mary Peltola.
2. What's in it for the Democrats?
The Democrats argued that it was against the law to remove him. Is there a chance having a second Republican Dan Sullivan on the ballot would help the Democratic candidate? One would like to think they are doing this because they believe in the rule of law, and believe the law is being thwarted. But there is also the possibility that if Daniel J. is on the ballot, he could pull votes away from Daniel S. Let me address that in Question 4.
3. What's in it for the Republicans?
I heard frustration and anger from Republicans on the committee that a candidate that they did not vet or approve of got on the ballot with a Republican label. It was deceptive. It was intended to confuse the voters. It was particularly sneaky because his name was so similar to their front runner candidate.
Republican Rep. McCabe, I believe, took the opportunity at the hearing to point out that this confusion wouldn't have happened when we had closed primaries and the parties could designate who could use the party's label. Since, Republicans have gotten a referendum on the November ballot to repeal the Ranked Choice Voting, Open Primaries, and campaign funding limits that were originally established by referendum, I'm guessing they'll use this case as a reason to vote for the current proposition to end all three (RCV, open primaries, and campaign financing limits and disclosure).
Given that the head of their party, President Trump is the greatest liar, dirty trickster, election denier in US history, one has to take their anger and righteousness with a grain of salt. They support President Trump's every lie and nasty attack on Democrats, women, immigrants, LGBTQ+, journalists. While I might accept that they believe that the Administrative Code was a legitimate basis for kicking Daniel J. off the ballot, the law is pretty clear.
Again, looking at the actions of Trump administration, I can't take too seriously that the Republicans are supporters of the rule of law. It seems more like they are supporters of rule of winning. And it appears, at this point, they probably will win. They claim that the ballots will be printed on June 28. That's about five days away. I haven't heard about any attorneys about to file a lawsuit to restore Daniel J.'s name to the ballot. *** Anything is possible, but it looks like a win for the Republicans. (The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) made a complaint about Daniel J.'s candidacy and the Alaska Republican Party made two more complaints to the Division of Elections, which is under the purview of Republican Lt. Governor Dahlstrom and Republican Director of the Division of Elections Beecher.
***I wrote this post last night and this morning I learned from Alaska Public Media's Wesley Early that there is indeed a lawsuit that has been filed in Superior Court. (Links to what they filed) I've only read it quickly, but right off the bat they ask the court, because of the June 28 ballot printing deadline, to either
- have his name put back on the ballot, or
- delay printing ballots until this is resolved ***
[And I've learned since, that the hearing will be in Superior Court at 10am Thursday June 25.]
And given the Trump administration's war of Democratic voters - the many moves to redistrict to eliminate Democratic districts, to suppress the Black vote, and otherwise bend the election results through manipulation, I can't help but wonder if this is a test to be used in other states. Don't like a candidate? Knock him off the ballot. But time it so there isn't time to appeal before you have to print the ballots.
4. If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?
I started this section thinking: probably not. That Daniel J. just won't get to the general election. But read on. I find it hard to believe that Mary Peltola and Dan Sullivan will not be among the four top candidates in the primary election who would move on to the general election in November. There are 15 candidates on the ballot as of today. One more has withdrawn and another, Daniel J,. has a denied marked on his name.
There's one main Democrat and one main Republican - Peltola and Sen. Sullivan. The only other name that I recognize is Libertarian Party candidate Scott Kohlhaas. No, there are two more I recognize - perennial candidate for office Dustin Darden and Carol Hafner, the mother of Eric Hafner, the New York prisoner running, again, for the US House seat. Yes, his mother is running for the Alaska US Senate seat though she has never been to Alaska and lives in South Dakota.
In the 2024 US House primary race there were three 'known' candidates: Mary Peltola, Nick Begich, and Nancy Dahlstrom. Those three captured 97% of the vote. In the Alaska open primary, the top four candidates go on to the general election. The fourth candidate got 0.6% of the votes. The fifth place candidate was also at 0.6%. The sixth place candidate, the guy in the New York prison, got 0.4% of the votes. The third place candidate, Nancy Dahlstrom - now the Lt. Governor and overseer of the elections in 2026 - dropped out. Purportedly so as to not split the Republican vote in the general. Though because of ranked choice voting, that shouldn't have been an issue. So maybe there was another reason. Then the fourth place candidate dropped out. So the fifth and sixth place candidates moved onto the general ballot.
So would Daniel J. on the ballot hurt Daniel S. if he were on the ballot? The GOP members of the committee were right that there would be confusion. But as one of the witnesses who testified today, Hollis French, argued - it was up to the Division of Elections to find a way to make distinctions between the two candidates so voters could know which one was the 'real' Daniel Sullivan. And the 'real' Dan Sullivan's campaign would have to find effective ways to help voters know which Daniel Sullivan was their current US Senator.
We all recall how Lisa Murkowski, after losing the Republican primary, went on to conduct a successful write-in campaign, which required voters to spell her name right.. Not an easy task. But she pulled it off.
At this point, I''d guess that Peltola, Sen. Sullivan, and Kohlhaas would be the top three, scooping up most of the votes. As I look at the 2024 House race, the others won't get many votes. Though I suspect Dustin Darden has run often enough that people will vote for him because they recognize his name. And Daniel J. probably has a good chance to get votes too, for the very reasons the Sen. Sullivan campaign and the Republican Party of Alaska and the National Party want him off the ticket. It would be between him and Darden for fourth place.
Given that early polls show Peltola ahead of Sen. Sullivan, having Daniel J. on the November ballot would be a threat to Sen. Sullivan's reelection. If Daniel J. made it to the general election, and there he pulled 5% of the vote from the Senator, it could easily be enough to give Peltola the victory. Some might say that Peltola's ahead now, so she'd win either way. I think that's counting your chicks before the eggs are laid.
None of this was said out loud at the hearing - at least not where the mics caught it.
5. Are there bigger implications?
A. Precedent to knock candidates off the ballot in Alaska
If this succeeds, and it appears to have an excellent chance [now that the lawsuit has reached the court, I find it likely not to succeed], it would empower the Division of Elections to remove candidates from the ballot they don't like. As long as they time it so the candidate doesn't have time to get a court ruling before the deadline for printing the ballots, they could get away with it.
We know the National Republican Party is looking carefully at this race. It's one that has been labeled as flippable. We don't know how much communication there has been between the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Party. Or with the Dunleavy administration and the Trump administration. We do know the governor was in the White House recently and didn't protest when the President insulted Lisa Murkowski. There are short rumors about Dunleavy running against Murkowski in 2028 on websites such as this one..
I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but we should assume that something is happening until we find out for sure.
Meanwhile, I found one US attempt to get opponents off the ballot. And we know that Trump admires authoritarian governments, the type that keeps opponents off the ballot.
How the Head of a Super PAC Tried — and Failed — to Remove Every Opponent From the
Surprising but True: 5 Countries Where Political Opposition Is Banned
Twenty years of ruthlessness: how Russia has silenced Putin’s opponents
B. This could be a trial run for the Trump administration to get states to just knock candidates he doesn't like off the ballot.
C. Candidates running against each other with similar names isn't that unusual.
First, it's not that unusual for competing candidates to have similar names.
"In 215 contests across 15 states, 438 candidates running for office this year share the same last name. Every single one of these contests is for a local election. Of these contests, all but one are nonpartisan elections. One contest, District 20 of the New York City Council, was a partisan contest where Allen Wang (Conservative Party) and Steven Wang (Patriot Party) shared a last name." (From Ballotpedia)
And in Washington State, we have a story of a Republican recruiting two Bob Fergusons to run against the Democratic candidate for Governor, Bob Ferguson. But this was a state office, not a federal office, and the state had rules against candidates running to intentionally confuse voters.
I think this captures the most important ideas that came out of the hearing - spoken, unspoken, and beyond. The next focus will be on the Superior Court.
Below is a link to the video of the meeting. I think my approach here is more useful to readers than trying to outline what all happened in the meeting. You can watch/listen to the meeting below.
And while I was trying to finish this up, I found a Wesley Early Alaska Public Media article "Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan sues Alaska Division of Elections after being removed from U.S. Senate ballot" Other than the first sentence which says he filed suit, the article gives no more details on when or where he filed suit. It is a brief synopsis of today's hearing and I found nothing about Daniel G. suing other than the headline.
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning in Superior Court. There will be a zoom link. I'll get the time and courtroom and zoom number tomorrow I hope.
Related posts:
