UPDATE 10/27/26:
"State of Alaska says DOJ lawsuit over Senate race ‘has no legal basis’
Alaska Public Media | By Liz Ruskin
Published October 27, 2026 at 10:37 AM AKDT
Alaska Public Media
Alaska Elections Director Carol Beecher at a legislative hearing on July 22, 2026.
The State of Alaska is urging a federal judge to “immediately” dismiss a Trump administration lawsuit that could block certification of the U.S. Senate election if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan narrowly loses.
“Delaying certification of Alaska’s election results—but only if a particular candidate does not win—would interfere with state election administration and threaten election integrity,” the Alaska Department of Law, representing the Division of Elections and director Carol Beecher, wrote in response to the lawsuit.
The state said the lawsuit “has no legal basis” and would sow distrust in the vote. . ."
This was not something I expected! Very positive move. I guess they know it will only interfere with getting election results out in a timely manner.
Also, commenter Allen gives the link to find the court docket for Alaska court case that began last June. Thanks, Allen. This new case is a Federal, not State case.]]
UPDATE 10/24/26:
"Under representation from the ACLU of Alaska, the League of Women Voters of Alaska joined two individual Alaskan voters and Common Cause in a filing to intervene on the case on Friday, October 23. If granted, an intervention allows these additional interested parties to join the existing suit to present our unique perspectives. We also filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which would be considered by the court after the decision on the motion to intervene."] From an email from League of Women Voters
This is getting lots of national and international attention already and I don't need to repeat more than the basics. Here's the start of The Guardian article:
"Donald Trump said he ordered the justice department to file a lawsuit to block the certification of Alaska’s US Senate results if the Republican incumbent loses, a move that voting rights experts called an “unprecedented intervention” by the federal government with control of Congress in the balance.
“I’m the one that said do it,” Trump told reporters as he landed in Florida for a campaign rally on Friday."
Some others:
(Several others had paywalls so I won't link them, but you get the picture. This is big news. The first actual salvo of the Trump administration's attempt to overturn elections that don't go his way.)
Basically DOJ has filed suit to invalidate the Alaska Senate election if the sitting Republican Senator Daniel S. Sullivan doesn't win the election on the grounds that another candidate, named Daniel J. Sullivan, will have confused voters into voting for him instead of Daniel S. Sullivan. (I'd note that I wasn't confused after I marked Daniel J. Sullivan as my second choice - my first choice was NOT Daniel S) (Because we have Ranked Choice Voting I can make a second and third choice when I vote. You can even make a fourth choice vote, but I haven't figured out how that would ever matter because one of the candidates would have a majority before it got that far.)
What I can provide are links to nine blog posts I wrote in June and July of this year, where this battle was already fought out in the Alaska Courts and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled the State could not throw Daniel J. Sullivan off the ballot.
I'd also note a couple of other points I didn't see much in the other coverage:
1. The GOP have pushed hard* to get Democrats to vote for Eric Hafner for US Representative instead of Independent Bill Hill. Hafner is a resident of a New York prison.
*"Pushed hard" = sending out millions of dollars worth of flyers and other advertising to push Hafner and other non viable candidates to take votes from leading Democratic candidates.
2. The Alaska Division of Elections initially chose to drop Daniel J. Sullivan on the grounds that he was trying to confuse the voters (not a legal criterion of keeping someone off the ballot). There is a good chance that the Republican led State and State Division of Elections won't challenge the DOJ lawsuit and simply invalidate the election. What happens then?
Here are the posts I did in June and July of this year, chronicling how the State tried to keep Daniel J. Sullivan off the ballot and how the Alaska Supreme Court rejected that move.
June 22, 2026 Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE]
June 23, 2026 The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing
June 25, 2026 Daniel J. Appeal Of Division Of Elections Decision Plays Out In Nearly Empty Court Room
June 26, 2026 It's Almost 7pm -I Can't Find The Sullivan Decision - [Update - His Name Goes Back On The Ballot]
Monday, June 29, 2026 Supreme Court Keeps Daniel J. Sullivan On The Ballot
Tuesday, June 30, 2026 Division of Election's Sample Ballot Leaves Off Daniel J's Party Affiliation
Tuesday, July 07, 2026 Silence [UPDATE: Ballots Printed And Overseas Ballots Sent]
I've already thrown out the flyers supporting Hafner, but I do have one that is in response to those flyers:
My sense is the Republicans are sure the Democrats have put up Daniel J. Sullivan to run for Senate to confuse voters, because that's what they would do. And are doing with other candidates. During the primaries they spent close to a million dollars promoting Outside (of Alaska) candidates like Hafner.
Steve, you can download some documents from the Petersburg Dan lawsuit off the Alaska Court System's website, including the 6/29/26 Order to the State to put Dan J back on the ballot:
ReplyDeletehttps://appellate-records.courts.alaska.gov/CMSPublic/Case/Docket?q=w6sobc/DATc4vP2vv76aFg==%27
If the U.S. District Court grants the 2 motions to intervene by LWV-Common Cause, and Alaskans for Mary-DSCC, they become parties to the lawsuit just like the State of Alaska/Division of Elections. The second group says in their paperwork they plan to file a motion to dismiss the DOJ case immediately. And if the State/Division tries to settle the lawsuit with the DOJ, and agrees not to certify or to delay certifying the election, the intervenors can object. There are other ways to stop the State/Division from throwing the election but we aren't there yet.
Peltola campaign and national Dems recruited spoiler candidates, including Petersburg Sullivan, according to New York Times
ReplyDeleteAnd your point is? If the NYT story is accurate, people who work for her recruited Daniel J. Sullivan to run. Republicans have spent nearly $1 million (by now probably more) to promote the candidacy of phantom candidates living out of Alaska, including the one listed above - Eric Hafner, the New York prisoner - who may have cost Peltola her house seat in 2022. What was done is not illegal. How about we talk about the 14 - 17 rural polling places that have not been open for early voting in regions where most of the voters are Alaska Natives? That’s on the GOP Dunleavy administration. Even If that’s not illegal (I don’t know) it’s incompetence, or intentional voter suppression.
DeleteDan S. Sullivan has looked the other way while the most corrupt president in US history has lied constantly, has rounded up (mostly dark skinned) people - immigrants and US citizens alike - beaten them, shipped them to concentration camps, and then paid dictators around the world to dispose of them. While the president and his family have enriched themselves - billions of dollars worth. Made the Department of Justice into his personal legal attack dog. Started a war he promised not to start. Does Putin’s bidding violating federal law by lifting sanctions and not supporting Ukraine. Kept large portions of the Epstein files hidden despite a law that required them to be released long ago and despite promising to release them. In fact doing so much damage I can only begin to list some of the worst.
Dan S. has done or said nothing to counter this crime spree by the president despite having sworn an oath to uphold the constitution. Recruiting Daniel J. is like putting a mustache on a poster of her opponent in comparison. There’s been so much publicity about Daniel J. and Daniel S. has been labeled ‘Republican’ and ‘Incumbent’ on the ballot. Not very many people will vote for him by mistake. A lot will probably vote for him to spite Daniel S. And in any case, we have ranked choice voting so they can vote for both Dans if they aren’t sure. Or are you suggesting Republicans aren’t smart enough to distinguish between them?
I don’t know that you have anything serious to say. Sounds troll like. I’ve allowed the first comment above, but if you leave another comment that is anonymous and your identity can’t be verified, I’ll block it.
And someone objects to ‘concentration camps’ I’d note that Hitler’s concentration camps didn’t begin as extermination camps either. And shipping prisoners off to foreign dictatorships is simply a way to avoid killing them in the US. And even so, detainees are dying in the camps.