Congressional Fisheries Debate Today - Begich and Hill; Sullivan and Peltola

Today, the Congressional Debate on Fisheries took place in Kodiak.  The Governor's debate was Wednesday.  You can watch it here.

The debate is about fish policy.  I include it here because there aren't a lot of chances to see debates between the candidates these days.  Public debates used to be common.  No longer.  

On the video below, first you hear the debate by the House candidates Rep. Begich and Bill Hill.  Then the Senate debate between Sen. Sullivan and Mary Peltola.  I'm not sure why the other two candidates in the race were not there.  Were they not invited?  Did they choose not to attend?  I don't know.  

All four candidates in the governor's race were at that debate Wednesday.  

I have a few reactions to how the candidates did, but I'll give you a chance to view the debate first.

I'd note the Bill Hill came out first and shook hands with the questioners.  Rep. Begich did the same.  Then Bill Hill went over to Rep. Begich and shook hands and spoke to him.  

We first see Sen. Sullivan and Mary Peltola sitting at the table, so I don't know whether they greeted the interviewers and each other, But the body language at the table isn't warm and fuzzy.  

Fisheries might be the least partisan big Alaskan issues.  That makes these debates less revealing, perhaps, than if we had debates that dealt with more controversial issues.  

Thoughts on Begich and Hill debate.  

I was impressed with Begich's manner and knowledge of the issues.  Hill also knew the issues. Hill's answers brought in the view of Alaska Natives and subsistence fishers.  I thought it was telling that when the questioner said a zero percent bi-catch target was unrealistic. That wasn't the question, it was an assumption underlying the question.   Hill's response was that it should be the goal.  Begich agreed.  Would Begich have said that if Hill hadn't first?  I don't know.  Mary Peltola in the second debate said no fishery has zero bi-catch but when bi-catch is in the metric tons, that's a different story.  

Begich said he had written and passed more legislation than any freshman Congressman ever.  Later he gave numbers:  13 bills, nine passed into law.  I'll see if I can find out what they were and how you research the number of bills freshman Congressmen have introduced and passed into law.  

I'd also take issue with Begich's statement that he travels the state and listens and responds to every Alaska.  I don't believe that he has spoken to an open forum in the Anchorage area the whole time he's been in office.  He speaks only to private groups that limit who attends.  These generally are not announced publicly before the event takes place.  I've written a number of letters to his office and I have not received any responses.  

Thoughts on Sullivan and Peltola debate. 

Sullivan was able to tout various bills he had passed that had improved Alaska fisheries.  He contrasted the number of bills he passed to Peltola's no bills passed, without mentioning he has been in the Senate for 12 years, almost half of that time with Trump as president.  Peltola was in Congress for only two years.  

Both candidates knew the topic.  One thing that struck me was Sullivan's tone.  Whiney isn't quite the right word, but he sounded like someone who felt like he had being unfairly attacked  and was exasperatedly trying to defend his record.  Not like a successful and confident two term Senator.  I'd note that Sullivan acknowledged that climate change was one of the factors resulting in fewer fish reaching subsistence fishers.  

But you can judge for yourself.  

Alaskan Pols Don't Seem To Believe In Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) [UPDATED]

[I started this over a week ago.  Since then, there's been a lot written about people dropping out of different races, how a couple of politicians have been blocked from running because their disclosures were incomplete.  

My basic message here is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are signaling to the public that they don't have confidence in Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).  Or in voters actually using it.  This is a shame because the Right has put a proposal on the November ballot to abolish RCV.  The Democrats, in three key races - US House and Senate, and Alaska governor's race, have discouraged (apparently more forcefully than that) Democrats from competing with each other in the general election.  To me that indicates distrust in voters being smart enough to actually use RCV to rank the Democrats on the ballot.

From what I can tell, looking at the 2024 US House race, a fair number of voters utilized their RCV option to rank candidates.  But the two extra candidates (besides the main Democrat (Mary Peltola) and the main Republican (Nick Begich) were very marginal candidates - one in prison in New York and the other in the Alaska Independence Party.  My belief is that both the candidates and the public need to learn how to use this process and it's likely the voters are smarter than the politicians think.]

We know the Republicans don't believe in it.  They opposed it strongly from the beginning and they're behind Proposition 2 which would take Alaska back to the old system.  (Prop 2, and this is important, would also get rid of open primaries - their real target - and rules about disclosure of people who contribute to PACs. You can read all 35 pages of Prop.2 here.)

When RCV was first being introduced,  the Democratic leadership opposed Ranked Choice Voting (and the open primaries attached to the initiative), but came around to support RCV.

The biggest benefit of the RCV package that Alaskans passed, would appear to be the bi-partisan majorities in the state House and Senate.  By getting rid of closed primaries, Alaskans prevented parties from electing the most extreme candidates in their party.  With open primaries (vote for one candidate), the top four candidates get to the general election ballot (Ranked Choice - you can vote your first - fourth choices).  It's resulted in more moderate legislators, who are able to work together and pass bills.  At least that seems to be the outcome.  

Our first RCV election - two key Republican candidates (Sarah Palin and Nick Begich) for US House seemed to siphon off votes from each other and Democrat Mary Peltola was elected.  The next round, the top two Republican candidates for the House worked out a deal where Nancy Dahlstrom withdrew, and Nick Begich defeated Mary Peltola.  

This current election (2026) we've seen lots of shenanigans, starting with the GOP controlled Division of Elections leaving candidate Daniel J. Sullivan off the US Senate ballot on the grounds (that exist no where in the law) that he wasn't a real candidate, that he wanted to confuse voters into thinking he was our sitting Senator, Dan S. Sullivan.  

The Alaska Supreme Court required that he be put back on the ballot.  He did reappear, but without a party affiliation (he was a registered Republican) and they added "Incumbent" to the sitting Senator's name (though the regs prohibit any honorifics).

Then voters began getting close to a million dollars worth of flyers and social media ads pushing two out-of-state candidates (yes that's legal) who were identified as progressive and an Alaska Native candidate who is listed as a Democratic Socialist and trashing leading Democratic candidate Mary Peltola.  The strategy, apparently, was to get left leaning candidates on the final ballot to draw votes from Peltola.  

They did get David Leslie (the Alaska Native candidate) on the general election ballot, but Daniel J. Sullivan also made it.  How many of his votes were 'confused with Daniel S" and how many were intentional because of all the publicity he got from the attempts to wipe him off the ballot, we probably will never know. 

So that's the Republican story.  

But the Democrats seem to not believe the voters can handle RCV either.  First, before the primary, Democratic candidate Matt Schultz withdrew from the race, taking the only serious Democratic candidate out of the election.  He says we wasn't getting the party and financial support he needed.  That left Nonpartisan Bill Hill, who got support from the normal liberal support groups - labor unions, the environmental crowd.  

Now Democrat Tom Begich (the uncle of GOP Rep Nick Begich)  has withdrawn from the general election (and the ballot) to support Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (JKT).  JKT got 36,961 votes (22.5%) in the primary.  Begich got 34,149 votes (20.8%)  They were the two top vote getters - in the race for governor.  A bunch of Republicans split the GOP vote. The top two - Bernadette Wilson got 16,456 votes (10%) and David Bronson got 13,349 (8%).  With Begich out, that left Republican Treg Taylor to move up to the fourth spot (and the general election ballot.)  But he was disqualified for not filling in the financial disclosure info when he signed up to be a candidate.  Then his Lt. Gov candidate moved up to be the governor candidate and chose Treg Taylor's wife to be her running mate.   Though she may have the same disclosure problems her husband has. 

I'm hearing complaints from people I know, and I feel it myself, that these politicians don't trust Alaskan voters to rank the candidates.  

They don't trust the voters to rank their preferred Democrat first and the other one second.  

With two strong Democrats running for governor, it was a chance to demonstrate how RCV should work.  Each should have strongly told their supporters to vote for them first and the other Democrat second.  Emphasized that they were very similar on policy issues.  This would have been especially important this year because we also vote on whether to end RCV (and I feel compelled to always point out we would also end open primaries and disclosure of those who give dark money.  And other things are in there, like having Governor and Lt. Governor run separately, not as a team.)

Tom Begich sent a letter out to supporters that justified getting out of the race as a matter of money:

"At a time when so many Alaskans are already stretched thin, we cannot keep asking them to give more and more just to compete with much larger amounts of money flowing into politics in Alaska. Continuing through November would require millions more, and we believe that the strongest path to victory is to bring Democratic voters, donors and resources together behind one candidate.

Before we made this decision, I spoke directly with Jonathan about the priorities at the heart of our campaign and the promises we made to Alaskans.

We share a commitment to strong public schools, affordable energy, housing and health care, and making sure Alaska receives its fair share from our resources."

But it's clear both parties are wary of having more than one candidate from their party running for the same office.  The Republicans did everything they could to push the candidacies of marginal Democratic candidates onto the US Senate race.  At this point that seems to have failed.  Right now we have Peltola (the Democrat who got 49.5% of the vote in the primary) and three Republicans - the current US Senator Dan S. Sullivan, Daniel J. Sullivan, and Jerry Heikes.   [I'd note that today the Anchorage Daily News said that Democrat David Leslie has dropped out of the race under pressure from Democrats, and that Jerry Heikes, listed as a Republican, has moved up to the fourth spot.] 

And right now, there is one Democrat and three Republicans running for Governor.  (The deadline to drop out has passed, but there are questions about Jodi Taylor's financial disclosure which is pretty much the same as her husband's was.)    [UPDATE 9/9/2026:  Treg Taylor is back on the ballot on orders apparently from the Lt. Governor's (the same Nancy Dahlstrom from 2024) superiors because, they say, lots of people have left things blank and not been disqualified.]

I'd also note that Candi English (Treg Taylor's running mate) moving up as a governor candidate raises new questions.  She's been relatively invisible and it seems odd for her to leapfrog over other candidates onto the general ballot.   

There is no perfect system.  Whatever system you have, people figure out ways to game the system.  Ideally, we will not get rid of Ranked Choice Voting in November and we can learn how to make it work.

As I looked back on the 2024 US House race, there were four candidates:

• Mary Peltola
• Nick Begich
• Eric Hafner (who was then and is now a prisoner in a New York prison and labeled as a Democrat)
• John Wayne Howe (Alaska Independence Party)

This is a disparate group of candidates.  You can't judge RCV based on whether voters in this race chose to use more than one vote or not.  Why would a serious voter cast a vote for someone in prison across the country?  Possibly as protest.  But then why cast a second vote?

Peltola voters have no reason to cast a second vote.  What would be the point?  

But, in fact, people did cast second votes.  The first person eliminated was Eric Hafner.  

The charts come from the Alaska Division of Elections page here.

Hafner got 3558 votes.  The Hafner voters gave 267 to Nick Begich, 661 to John Wayne Howe, and 1313 to Mary Peltola.  That totals 2214 second place votes transferred to other candidates.  62% of the people who voted for Hafner ranked a second candidate.  That seems to be a fair number.  (I understand exhausted on the chart to mean that there wasn't a second choice vote.  Overvotes, I think means they marked more than one person for the same ranking.  [I called the Division of Elections in Anchorage to check.  They referred me to the main office in Juneau.  The guy who answered the phone had to go ask someone else.  But eventually he confirmed that my guesses were correct.  I also asked about the Fraction column and he had to go ask again.  Apparently for some jurisdictions the votes can be divided into fractions, but Alaska doesn't do that so these are whole votes, or 1.]

John Wayne Howe got 13,871 votes and 7541 of his voters (or 54%) ranked someone second.  

Given that Eric Hafner and John Wayne Howe voters were probably disaffected voters who chose a) a New York prisoner and b) and Alaska Independence Party candidate as their first choice, these seem like fairly high percentages of voters using RCV.  

If there were two strong candidates from the same party with very similar policy positions on the general ballot, I'd guess there would be a higher percentage of second place votes.  It's true that the first time around (2022), Sarah Palin and Nick Begich (both Republicans) attacked each other instead of working together.  In 2024 the second place 'name' Republican, Nancy Dahlstrom, dropped out rather than run against Nick Begich.  

But we won't see two such candidates from the Democratic side in state wide office elections this year.  We will see that with Republicans in the Governor's race, but not really in the US Senate race.  There we have one Democrat (Peltola), one main Republican (Sen, Sullivan), and two lesser Republicans.  The three Republicans are not likely to cooperate and tell the voters to rank the other two Republicans. But the 2024 numbers suggest that the most voters will rank a second choice. 

The US House race was the only statewide election in 2024 except for the presidential election.  I'm guessing the presidential election could have been RCV, but in any case Trump won a majority so if it was RCV, there was no need to go to the RCV round,  

My biggest concern here is that the politicians aren't going to let us actually use ranked choice voting because if they have two main candidates competing, they'll pull the one with fewer votes out.  The three Republicans on the ballot for governor are an exception to the  trend I'm calling out here.  Let's see if they cooperate and tell voters to give their second and third place votes the other Republicans.

[This is not as succinct (or probably as clear) as I wanted this to be, but I need to move on.]

[UPDATE: September 24, 2026:  I've responded to the anonymous commenter here.]

Primary Election Day Tomorrow in Alaska and Prediction Markets

 Hard to believe it's finally here.  We didn't get any campaign literature in the mail today!!!

Probably the most uncertainty centers around the Governor's race.  There are lots of known candidates.  Which of the Republicans will end up in the top four?  And will other Republicans drop out in the belief that being on the ballot could siphon off votes from the top Republican and help the top Democrat.  Will the second Democrat, if there is one, also drop out?  

Ranked Choice Tabulation Questions

Given that we have Ranked Choice Voting, voters can rank all four candidates - first choice, second choice, third choice, fourth choice. If a candidate gets 50%+1 vote in the first round that candidate wins.   If no one gets over 50%, the candidate with the fewest first place votes is dropped and that candidate's second place votes are distributed to the other candidates.

DOE_Tabulation_60sec_HULU.mp4  Link to the video explaining how they count ranked choice voting from the Division of Elections.  Couldn't find a way to embed the video here.  [I did look, and it can be done, but I didn't find instructions I could use.)

I have questions about tabulating the votes, but tomorrow is election day and I'm not going to try to get answers from the Division of Elections until after the election. 

The video doesn't explain how, if ever, the third and fourth choice votes would count.  Perhaps if someone's choice for a second place vote has already been eliminated, the third place vote would count.  (I couldn't find anything that actually says that.)  And with only four candidates in the general, I don't think you would ever get to the fourth choice vote.  

Also, what if someone got no first place votes, but was the second place choice for all the other candidates?  That person would be eliminated on the first round and would never get the second place votes.  It's not a likely scenario, but something like that could happen.  

Ranked Choice Strategy Questions

In 2022, Sarah Palin and Nick Begich split the Republican vote in the general and enough second place votes gave Peltola the win.  

In 2024, two Republicans pulled out of the general, presumably because they didn't want to do the same thing, and Nick Begich beat Peltola.  But that year Trump was also on the ballot and that brought out lots of Republican voters.  (Total votes for US House:  2024 = 329,493;  2022=263,610) 

Ranked Choice Voting is supposed to overcome this sort of problem by giving voters the option to make second and third choice votes.  But not enough voters have done that.  Will they learn to do that in the future?  Are there good strategic reasons not to rank?  What are they?  Will there be candidates who urge their voters to choose Candidate B as their second choice?

The Spoiler Candidates and the Spoiler PAC Campaigns

My previous post was about Outside [Alaska lingo for outside of Alaska] PACs spending lots of money on fringe candidates - one from Arizona, one from South Dakota, and one Alaskan - in an attempt to get them onto the final four in the general.  

One of those candidates - Richard Grayson - has said he would withdraw if he were in the final four.  Today Grayson emailed me a link to a review of what the prediction markets are saying about the Alaska US Senate race.  There's a lot more discussion at the link, but here's the gist:

That's hard to read 

That was too small, and now it's too big, but the chart is in the link.  I've also looked at the Kalshi page on this race and it's clear I need to learn a lot more about prediction markets and what everything means.  I do suspect that a lot of people who are betting are not from Alaska and don't really know that much about our elections.  But I don't really know.  

The prediction markets didn't do that well in Michigan and Wisconsin.

In comparison, on June 23, 2026  I wrote:

"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.  

[*I'd mentioned Kohlhaas in an earlier paragraph as another candidate (Alaska Libertarian Party) who had run often enough that people knew his name."]

Tomorrow evening, and surely by Wednesday, we'll know.   

[This post has more of a deadline than most, so I'm going to post now without proofing as much as I normally would.  If I find typos etc., I'll fix them.  I won't change content, but if I do, like always,  I'll make it clear what I did.]

Silence [UPDATE: Ballots Printed And Overseas Ballots Sent]

[See update below]

The Division of Elections said it had a June 28 deadline to print primary ballots. 

But then they took Daniel J. Sullivan off the ballot in the US Senate race and were challenged in court and required to put him back on by the Superior and then Alaska Supreme Court. 

Then a sample ballot appeared on their website which left off Daniel J.'s political party and added "Incumbent" to Senator Dan S Sullivan's name on the ballot.  (Honorifics are not allowed and someone checked the last four elections and reported that no one had 'incumbent' by their name.)

Since then there's been almost complete silence.  

• Were the ballots printed?  If so, what do they look like?
• Did Daniel J. file any sort of legal complaint?  
• What do the judges think about all this?  They said they'd trust the professionalism of the Division of Elections, but that was clearly a mistake.  

The only word has been from NBC saying the US Department of Justice and the Alaska Attorney General's office are investigating a conspiracy around putting Daniel J. on the ballot. Because he was trying to confuse the public.  I can think of others they should investigate first on that charge.   

Do you think the Republicans are worried about losing the Senate?

It's July 7 already and no word.  Yes, the July 4 holiday took up some time.  In fact the Division of Elections office in Anchorage was closed Friday AND Monday.  

[UPDATE:  July 7, 2026:  I stopped by the Anchorage Division of Elections again today to drop off a voter registration form. (I'm a voter registrar.)  The door was locked.  Entry required me to call them.

When the door finally opened, I handed off the registration form and I had two questions. 

1. Were the primary ballots printed?  The woman answered, "Yes and they were sent to overseas voters last week."  
2. My follow up question was: what did the Senate ballot say? "The sample ballot is on our website."  Below is a copy of the sample ballot for District 1. (They show the ballots for each district to show that the order of the names is rotated for each district as required by law.)

As you can see, Daniel J. Sullivan has Jr. after his name and his party was left off.  Dan S. Sullivan got to have both Republican AND "Incumbent" listed.  

The State law says:

" (4) The director may not include on the ballot, as a part of a candidate's name, any honorary or assumed title or prefix but may include in the candidate's name any nickname or familiar form of a proper name of the candidate.

(5) The names of the candidates shall be placed in separate sections on the state general election ballot under the office designation to which they were nominated. If a candidate is registered as affiliated with a political party or political group, the party affiliation, if any, may be designated after the name of the candidate, upon request of the candidate. If a candidate has requested designation as nonpartisan or undeclared, that designation shall be placed after the name of the candidate. If a candidate is not registered as affiliated with a political party or political group and has not requested to be designated as nonpartisan or undeclared, the candidate shall be designated as undeclared."

Therefore, as I read this, placing "Incumbent" after the current Senator's name would seem to fall into the category of 'honorary or assumed title'.  I believe it was the Chief Justice who raised this in the Supreme Court hearing.  Sen. Dan's attorney brushed it off.

And Daniel J.'s political party - Republican- should have been printed under his name.  No matter how much the GOP argue that he only recently registered as a Republican, there is nothing that addresses when one registered, except it has to be done before you turn in the forms for candidacy.  

Is Daniel J.'s attorney working on this?  I don't know.  This is where we are today, as far as I can tell.  

[UPDATE:  I did email Daniel J.'s attorney and he responded that he can't comment at this time.]

Related Posts:

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]  

June 28, 2026

Supreme Court Hearing On Daniel J. Sullivan v Alaska Division of Elections Appeal On Zoom Only

Monday, June 29, 2026   Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

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

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:

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]  

June 28, 2026

Supreme Court Hearing On Daniel J. Sullivan v Alaska Division of Elections Appeal On Zoom Only

Monday, June 29, 2026   Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

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 7, 2026  Silence [UPDATE: Ballots Printed And Overseas Ballots Sent]

Daniel J. Appeal Of Division Of Elections Decision Plays Out In Nearly Empty Court Room

 At 9:45am there were just a few people waiting outside courtroom 401a in Anchorage.  In the end, there were about 11 people there in the gallery.  There was a woman who I'm guessing was working the computer connections.  

 

Darden

No one with a speaking part, including the Judge, was in the courtroom.  The only person who had any role at all in this appeal that I could tell, was Dustin Darden.  He's a candidate in the US Senate race.  Dustin had submitted a brief, which the judge accepted as an Amicus Brief, in which he basically says that if Daniel J. can be bumped off the ballot, then what's to stop them from bumping off a candidate like himself.  

Judge Matthews was on a large screen in front of the courtroom with a background that similar, but not the same as the actual courtroom.  We never saw the attorneys on the big screen, though at the table for the parties -there was a small screen which had the view of the attorneys.  

The judge said he had the briefs from Darden and from the Alaska Republican Party and that they wouldn't speak at the hearing, but he'd consider them as amicus briefs. 

First Jeffrey Robinson representing Daniel J. spoke.  There really wasn't anything I noticed as new (not in the brief originally submitted) though he said he had added some things after reading the State's brief.  They all agreed, in the interest of speed, that if that became important later, they could take it up.  

Again, the basic argument was that there were only three criteria the state could use to exclude someone from the ballot - the ones in the Constitution  - at least 30 years old, at least nine years as a US citizen, and an inhabitant of the state when elected.  His client met all three criteria.  

He dismissed the State's claim that the administrative regs which called for not allowing names on the ballot that would mislead the public had to be removed.  It was the job of the Division of Elections to figure out how to write the names in a way that would distinguish them for the public, and the job of the campaign of Sen. Sullivan to alert the voters so they would know which one to vote for.  

He did mention a candidate in Louisiana who'd changed his name to None of the Above, but was not allowed on the ballot.

Chris Murray, represented the State Division of Elections.  He basically made the argument that the administrative code requires that the Division NOT put someone on the ballot that would mislead and confuse the public.  

The judge promised to have a decision by 4:30pm tomorrow (Friday) and if there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, there would be time.  

I would note that it seems I'd have been better off staying at home and connecting via Zoom.  The main benefit of going to the court house was that it was a nice day for a bike ride.

Some other takes:

 Liz Ruskin, Alaska Public Media

Mark Sabbatini, Juneau Independent

Thomas Lamb: Analyzing Politics That Control Our Lives  I don't know who Lamb is, other than he lives in Palmer, Alaska.  He goes through the Division of Elections arguments point by point and concludes: 

"Christopher O. Murray and Michael Francisco filed their brief on June 24, 2026. It is sophisticated, well-researched, and constitutionally wrong. Here is why, argument by argument"

Related posts:

JJune 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]  

June 28, 2026

Supreme Court Hearing On Daniel J. Sullivan v Alaska Division of Elections Appeal On Zoom Only

Monday, June 29, 2026   Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

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 7, 2026  Silence [UPDATE: Ballots Printed And Overseas Ballots Sent]

The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing

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:

1. Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?
2. What's in it for the Democrats?
3. What's in it for the Republicans?
4. If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?
5. Are there bigger implications?

Let's look at these one at a time.  

1.  Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?

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 

1. at least 30 years old
2. a US citizen for at least nine years
3. 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

1. have his name put back on the ballot, or
2. 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:

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]  

June 28, 2026

Supreme Court Hearing On Daniel J. Sullivan v Alaska Division of Elections Appeal On Zoom Only

Monday, June 29, 2026   Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

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 7, 2026  Silence [UPDATE: Ballots Printed And Overseas Ballots Sent]

Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE]

 [UPDATE:  Live Legislative Hearing on now (June 22, 2026 noon)  

https://www.ktoo.org/video/gavel/joint-house-judiciary-state-affairs-committee-2026061045/?eventID=2026061045

Daniel S. Sullivan is the junior US Senator for Alaska.  (Lisa Murkowski is the senior Senator).

Petersburg, Alaska resident Daniel J. Sullivan filed to run for the US Senate near the end of the filing period.  

Senator Daniel S Sullivan was not happy.  

"Sen. Sullivan has complained that Sullivan from Petersburg is a “sham candidate” and says his challenger is intentionally misleading voters to benefit a ranked-choice vote for Democratic candidate and former Alaska U.S. House Representative, Mary Peltola." (From the Alaska Beacon)

I'd note that the primary election is an open primary - all candidates for the same office are on one ballot.  It is NOT a ranked choice vote.  Voters get one vote only.  The top four candidates go on to the general election ballot, which is a ranked choice election.  

The qualifications to run for the US Senate in Alaska (from 2005 document on the State of Alaska Division of Elections webpage on qualifications): 

STATE OF ALASKA

DIVISION OF ELECTIONS

QUALIFICATIONS FOR HOLDING OFFICE

STATEWIDE CANDIDATES are those seeing the office of United States Senator, United States Representative, Governor or Lieutenant Governor.  The qualifications for these offices are as follows:

        United States Senator

• 30 years of age;
• citizen of the United States for 9 years; and 
• an inhabitant of the state from which elected.

[Blogspot was being fussy and not letting me post the screenshot of the document, so I copied it here.]

The US Senate lists the qualifications this way:

About the Senate & the U.S. Constitution | Qualifications

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]"

If you look carefully, you will note that the language of the State and of the US Constitution are slightly different.  The US Constitution sets the criteria, not the State of Alaska.  

1. The State language is pretty straightforward and writes the qualifications in a positive way while the Constitution frames the qualifications negatively:  "No Person shall be ..."
2. The State says 30 years of age while the Constitution  makes it clear that that is the minimum age.
3. The State says "an inhabitant of the state from which elected"  while the Constitution "[No person shall be a Senator who shall not,] when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

Keep number 3 in mind.  It becomes relevant later in the post when I write about Carol Hafner.

I'd also note that the Governor of Alaska and his Lt Governor are Trumpy Republicans and that the Lt. Governor's office is in charge of elections.  The head of the Division of Elections is appointed by the Governor or the Lt. Governor - I'm not sure which and I don't think it matters in this situation.  

On June 8, 2026, the Republican Lt. Governor, whose office is responsible for elections in Alaska, wrote a letter to candidate Daniel J. Sullivan: 

"RE:  Evaluation of Your Declaration of Candidacy for US Senate"

The letter has a long list of questions they have about his intent as a candidate, which they believe is to confuse voters.   

On June 15, there was a second letter  from the Alaska Division of Elections Website (You can read the whole letter at the link, I'm just going to give you the reasons why the Director decided to take his name off the ballot:

"On review of the complaints and other information in the Division’s possession, I conclude that your declaration of candidacy was not properly filed with the Division because it was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality. I highlight several facts that taken together bring me to this conclusion.

(1) You requested to access the ballot under the name “Dan Sullivan” even though it appears from Division records that you have never registered to vote or sought ballot access under this name. 

Our records indicate that you are registered to vote under the name “Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.” That you chose the occasion of your declaration of candidacy for U.S. Senate to seek ballot access under a name you have not used in your interactions with the Division suggests—and in combination with the additional facts I outline in this letter leads me to conclude—that you are seeking to confuse yourself with another candidate in the race, the incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan, rather than distinguish yourself from him. Indeed, you yourself appeared to be confused when you initially emailed the Division asking to be listed on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan.”“S” is Senator Sullivan’s middle initial, not yours.

(2) You requested to be designated on the ballot as affiliated with the Republican Party. Until two days before you filed your declaration of candidacy, you had never—according to the Division’s records—been affiliated with the Republican Party in Alaska. Of course, under Alaska law, you are free to change your party affiliation. This said, that you chose to change your affiliationtom the same political party—one you’d never affiliated with before—as the incumbent Senator immediately before filing a declaration of candidacy in which you asked to access the ballot under the same name – in a shortened form you’d never used before - as the incumbent Senator strongly suggests an intent to confuse yourself with the incumbent Senator rather than to distinguish yourself from him.

(3) Your public campaign website (https://www.sullivanforsenate.com/) uses a format, color scheme and overall theme similar to the public website for Senator Sullivan’s campaign (https://dansullivanforalaska.com/). While the Division takes no position on whether you have appropriated the intellectual property of Senator Sullivan’s campaign, the similarity— particularly in light of the other facts I outline in this letter—appears to be deliberate. This again suggests an intention not to distinguish yourself from the incumbent Senator as any candidate genuinely seeking office would do, but to confuse Alaskans as to which “Dan Sullivan” is which.

(4) A political consultant you have admitted is working with your campaign is a known longtime supporter of Democratic candidates including the primary Democratic challenger to Senator Sullivan. This consultant’s work on your behalf is, in isolation, innocuous. Alongside the other facts I have catalogued in this letter, however, it suggests a determined effort and a deliberate attempt to use the similarity of your name to confuse Alaska voters in the upcoming primary election.

In light of these unique, and to my knowledge utterly unprecedented facts (circumstances unlike any previously presented to the Division), I am forced to conclude that your declaration of candidacy, in which you stated under oath that you “declare myself to be a candidate for the office of United States Senator” was not filed in good faith for the purpose of genuinely pursuing election as Alaska’s U.S. Senator. Rather, these facts force the conclusion that your declaration of candidacy was filed with the purpose of confusing or misleading the electorate and compromising the fairness of the ballot by attempting to access the ballot under a version you have never used (“Dan Sullivan”) and with a party affiliation (Republican) that you have never before professed. Indeed, I conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is that you chose this new nickname and party affiliation because that name and party affiliation happen to be the name and party affiliation of another candidate in the race. A declaration of candidacy filed for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot is not properly filed as required by Alaska Statute 15.25.060. As such, I am unable to maintain your declaration of candidacy and I am de-certifying your candidacy for United States Senator. This decision is made pursuant to 15.25.042 and 6 AAC 25.260 along with other relevant provisions of law. Pursuant to 6 AAC 25.260(i), my determination in this matter is final. Although you have 30 days to appeal this decision, if you intend to challenge the decision and seek judicial relief in Alaska Superior Court to be placed on the ballot, be aware ballots are printed on June 28."

So, they did not find that he had lied in any of the material he submitted to the State Division of Elections.  

What they object to is that his "intent" is to mislead voters.  

They say he has never registered to vote as a "Republican" but they do not say how he registered.  Under Alaska law, you can register as "Undeclared" or "Non-partisan" as well as various parties.  "Undeclared" simply means you choose not to state your party preference.  Many people who vote Republican do that.  

They also say he is not registered as "Dan Sullivan" but as Daniel J. Sullivan.  They also don't share whether Sen. Dan Sullivan is registered that way or as Daniel S. Sullivan or something else.

The Anchorage Daily News editorial board on Sunday June 21, 2026 wrote a long and strong editorial stating that Dan may have had deceptive intentions but that the State qualifications (see above) do not include policing a candidate's intentions.  [The link maybe password protected.]

"Let’s not insult anyone’s intelligence here.

Dan J. Sullivan’s U.S. Senate campaign looks like a dirty trick, and most probably it is one. . .

Fine. But in the United States of America, people are allowed to run for office for bad reasons. They are allowed to run vanity campaigns, protest campaigns, spoiler campaigns, joke-adjacent campaigns and campaigns that make party leadership sweat through their Brooks Brothers vests.

That does not mean the Alaska Division of Elections gets to throw them off the ballot.

That is the line Director Carol Beecher, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom and the Division of Elections crossed when Beecher issued her determination removing Dan J. Sullivan from the Aug. 18 primary ballot."

I would note that also on the list of candidates is a woman from South Dakota:

“I’ve flown over [Alaska],” said Carol Hafner, the South Dakota resident and Alaska Senate candidate. “As far as boots on the ground, that’s in my future.”

If we go by the Alaska Division of Elections website, she should be disqualified because she is not "an inhabitant of the state from which elected."  But that is why I also included the US Senate's definition which includes "when elected."  So you can run for the US House and the US Senate having never been in Alaska (or any other state you might want to run in) without having ever been to that state as long as you become an inhabitant "when elected."  

Hafner's son is also running for the Alaska US House seat while sentenced to 20 years in a New York prison.  He was already in prison when hee ran for the Alaska US House seat in 2024.  He came in sixth.  Only the top four candidates go on to the ranked choice general election in November.  But the third and fourth place candidates dropped out and the fifth and sixth place candidates moved into the top four.   At that time the Democrats complained (Hafner was listed as a Democrat) that since he was in prison who could not be an Alaska resident if elected.  The Alaska Supreme Court ruled if I recall correctly, there was always a chance he could be paroled if elected and kept him on the ballot. I'd also note that the 3rd place candidate who dropped out was Republican Nancy Dahlstrom, the current Lt. Governor who wrote the initial letter about the investigation to Daniel J.  Here's the saga of that election.

But clearly Carol Hafner's 'intent' is just as deceptive if not more so than Daniel J. Sullivan's.  She lives in South Dakota.  Is she really going to move to Alaska if she wins?  There are 14 candidates on the ballot for the US Senate seat.  Daniel J. is now listed as deleted.  There is no way that Carol Hafner will end up in the top four, so she'll never move to Alaska. Sullivan and the Alaska Republican Party are not concerned about her.  

But if Daniel J. Sullivan can be removed because his intent was  not  

"to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality" 

then the state can start questioning the intent of any candidate.  

Why not ask the State to remove Mary Peltola, the Democrat who has served a term as our  representative in the US House?.  After all, her intent to is unseat Sen. Daniel S Sullivan which, underlying all the Division of Election's language, is why they are bumping Daniel J off the ballot.

I'm sure that Daniel S Sullivan knows this is illegal.  Intent is not one of the qualifications listed in the US Constitution or the Alaska Division of Elections criteria to run for US Senate.  

But note that as I write this, it is June 22, 2026.  The Director of the Division of Elections says in her letter that Daniel J. has 30 days to file an appeal, but that the primary ballot will be printed on June 28. In six days!  

They are know they will lose in court, but that the ballot will have already been printed for the August 18, 2026 primary  election.  

I have no doubt that the judge who gets this case will also know that is their strategy and may well rule against the Division of Elections AND demand that a new ballot be printed.  

If that happens, the taxpayers of Alaska, not the head of the Division of Elections or the Alaska Republican Party, will pay.  

It also opens up the likelihood that the Division of Elections will blame the court for any problems due to having reprinted the ballots, after their scheduled deadline.  

I would say that no matter Daniel J's intent, it's clear he qualifies for the ballot.  The real problematic intent is with Daniel S. Sullivan, the Alaska Republican Party, and the Division of Elections who know that "honorable intent" is not a qualification for the office of US Senator.  And are pretty familiar with dishonorable intent.  

Follow up posts:

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]  

June 28, 2026

Supreme Court Hearing On Daniel J. Sullivan v Alaska Division of Elections Appeal On Zoom Only

Monday, June 29, 2026   Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

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 7, 2026  Silence [UPDATE: Ballots Printed And Overseas Ballots Sent]

John Martin Shot To Death

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2023/06/19/shooting-of-man-sleeping-in-south-anchorage-parking-lot-was-unprovoked-attack-prosecutor-says/

Back in 2012 I posted about John Martin's city hall protest 

over homelessness

.   The post included a 

video that is no longer working (it was on Viddler and they cut my account long ago.  Though they did send me the files for my videos.  I redid some on YouTube, but not all of them.  Not sure where that file is anymore.  I mention this simply because this is a danger in an age when people store the photos, videos, and data outside of their control.)  In the video I talked to John and then Mayor Sullivan comes across the street and gives John a cup of coffee and they chat a bit.  

A previous post shows him at the Assembly and I did a brief video at the break. (It too was on Viddler and doesn't seem to be working, though it flashed an image of John just before turning black.  Somewhere I probably have these on a sound card.  When Mac upgraded they switched out of the old iMovie and so those original files are available either.  Beware how you backup your stuff.)

I'd been walking from the bus station to the Redistricting Board meeting and showed up at just the right time.  

I don't know much about John.  He did later attempt to cross the Bering Sea to Russia.  He was a committed advocate for the poor and homeless.  He saw the world from a slightly different angle than most people.  

I don't know why he was shot.  I don't know if he was the target or he was just randomly shot.  I just know we've lost a unique and sensitive member of our community to gun violence.