Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Division of Election's Sample Ballot Leaves Off Daniel J's Party Affiliation

The Division of Elections has a Sample Ballot posted on its website.  I believe it went up last night after the Supreme Court hearing.  

(There is another list of Senate candidates which has a red "Denied" next to Daniel J. Sullivan's name.)

The listing is for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.   There is no party listing.  He is the only candidate with no party listing even if it is just "(Undisclosed)."  I listened to the Court arguments yesterday and to part of the hearing again today.  It was my impression that the Court expected a party designation of Republican next to Daniel J.'s name. Though they never explicitly said so.  

My comment at the end of yesterday's post was that I had less confidence that the Division would do the right thing than the Court seemed to have.  The Republican Party, from the national level (the  National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)  made the first complaint about Daniel J.  Sullivan being on the ballot) to the many states that sent in amicus briefs supporting the Division's decision to delete Daniel J. from the ballot, to the Alaska Republican Party which filed two more complaints, and whose members include Lt. Governor Dahlstrom (who oversees elections) and the Division head Beecher.  

And here we are.  Today's the day the ballots are scheduled to be printed.  The Division's attorney, Chris Murray, did say that if Sullivan doesn't like how his name appears on the ballot he can appeal it.  But, as Chief Justice Carney replied, the time is short.  


Here's the ballot that's up on the site now:  

Thank you to Matthew Beck who posted this last night on Bluesky

Below is my transcript of part of Monday's court hearing.  As I listened to it, I noticed several things.  
1.  Mr. Murray is good at saying he agrees with what a Justice just said, but then he twists it in his own favor.  
2.  The Justices - particularly Chief Justice Carney - appeared to believe that Daniel J. Sullivan had registered as a Republican before filing and that he should have that designation by his name.  Though Mr. Murray casts doubt on Daniel J's Republican credentials:"if or to the extent that he ever registered with the Republican Party  he did when he filed his declaration of candidacy"
3.  Mr. Murray points out he can be listed as a Republican or nothing at all.  He keeps that option open, though what I heard from the justices was that he was a Republican and should be listed that way.  
4.  Murray points out that if Sullivan doesn't like his designation, he can appeal it, but Chief Justice Carney immediately points out the time crunch.  


"Chief Justice Carney:  49:09  The Division’s proposal  not to list him as a Republican after certifying his declaration of candidacy as a Republican would appear to be a little outside its discretion, wouldn’t it?  Don’t they have to list him as Republican?
Chris Murray: I would respectfully disagree there and I would point you Madame Chief Justice to Alaska Statute 151530 Subsection  5.  If you look there, this talks about how the ballot is prepared.  What’s got to go on there, basically the Division must do and what the Division can do. And I would point you to the second sentence of that subsection. which says, if a candidate is registered as affiliated with a party or group it doesn’t - it doesn’t sound as if there is any debate here, Mr. Sullivan, if or to the extent that he ever registered with the Republican Party  he did when he filed his declaration of candidacy
Justice Henderson:  He registered
Murray:  Justice Henderson, I wanted to get to the next piece.
Justice Henderson:   I don’t see anything in this subsection that allows the Division to force someone to have a descriptor in terms of affiliation, political affiliation,  that is contrary to what they requested.
Murray:  So, there Your Honor, I agree with you.  And in our briefing we suggested that he be listed as non-partisan.  I will say that’s a product of speed, it’s simply not correct.  I think he could be listed as Republican or nothing at all.  That’s what could be done.  So, I think you make a very fair point there.  But I will say that when it comes to the partisan affiliation, the statute says it may be designated after the name of the candidate. 
Chief Justice Carney:  Well, if you journey back to felons in Outside prisons part of that appeal was that if the Democrats didn’t really want to associate with a felon in an Outside prison, right?  He got to appear on the ballot as a Democrat did he not?
Murray:  In that case again, there was never a challenge from, the Division never made any findings on that.  The context of the Beecher case was, can you elevate more than one from fifth place for the top fou, I know this court is very familiar with it.  You decided it.
Chief Justice Carney:  Absolutely.  But the Division’s briefing at the Superior Court there has multiple references to, for example on page 17 of his opposition to his motion below, “Mr. Hafner is qualified.  He correctly completed his declaration of candidacy.  That was as a Democrat. That was what he was listed ultimately, as a Democrat on the ballot.
Murray:  I also don’t believe there was any question    as a Democrat out of state.  Here again I would say that if the determination regarding how Mr Sullivan goes on the ballot that he doesn’t like,  he does have a right to challenge it.  I’d hate to do it, but he does have a right to challenge it.  We don’t deny that.    
Chief Justice Carney:  You may have noticed that the time is running short?
Murray:  There’s no question about that, Madame Chief Justice and I would also  like to echo what Mr. Robinson said that we appreciate both Judge Matthews below and this court’s expeditious hearing here.  We would ask the court, if it decides Mr. Sullivan has to go on the ballot, that it remand and let the division make the determination about how he goes on the ballot. If the court is unwilling to do that, we ask that the court direct us to do that, but we don’t think that’s this courts place"

I tried to call the number listed for Mr. Sullivan on the other sample ballot, but, understandably, it's blocking callers.  Will he take advantage of the appeal that Mr. Murray mentioned?  We'll see.  

Is this worth all the time we've spent on it?  The Republicans seem to think so.  Sen. Sullivan is listed as one of the more vulnerable Republican US Senators.  Having Republcan next to his name probably would get Daniel J. more votes.  If Sen. Sullivan is not reelected and a few other incumbent Republican senators lose, the US Senate would become majority Democratic and that would greatly change the direction of the country.  So it is a big deal.  

Related Posts:

Posted by at 11:19 AM
Labels: , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)