Showing posts with label elections 2026. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections 2026. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 07, 2026

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.  


" (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:


Posted by at 11:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,

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 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, June 29, 2026

Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

AK Div of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan live at www.ktoo.org/gavel

Depending on whether I'm looking at the clock on my laptop, phone, or watch, it is now 10:07, 10:15, or 10:10 and I have the screen up but nothing has happened yet.  Oh, yes - now it says delayed start.  

[Screenshot from KTOO Gavel Alaska]  
 

Not sure what that means.  I was told the courtroom wouldn't be open today and I assumed it meant everyone was zooming in.  That was the case of the Superior Court hearing Thursday - none of the participants were there live, including the judge, but the courtroom was open and there were about a dozen people in the gallery.  

10:22 - Delay notice gone, Gavel banging.

Oh dear.  My notes are pretty sketchy.  I'm not sure I should leave them up.  The video is supposed to be up for anyone to listen to.  Let me try to get the gist up and then I'll decide whether my notes should go up as well.  

Basically, Chris Murray, attorney for the Division of Elections, began arguing that Sullivan is on the ballot to confuse the voters and so should be removed, and the justices are asking where it says that's a reason for taking him off the ballot.  

Aren't the voters smart enough?

Murray is standing hard that Sullivan was on the ballot only to confuse the voters and the Court keeps questioning him about that.  

[Left to right starting with top row:
Susan M. Carney, Chief Justice, Justice Jennifer Henderson;  Second row: Justice Jude Pate, Justice Aimee A. Oravec;  Attorney for Div of Elections: Chris Murray;
Third row:  Attorney for Daniel J. Sullivan] [Screenshot from KTOO Gavel Alaska]

[It was impossible for me to read their names correctly from the screen.  They were just too small, though clearer than the screenshot above.]


The justices seemed to come down pretty hard on that point.  

They also  questioned Jeffrey Robinson closely when it was his turn.  

My sense is that the decision to bump Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot will not prevail.  That leaves questions about how his name will appear and how much the court will direct how his name will appear or whether they will leave it up to the Division of Elections.  

Some of the questions about the name:

  1. Will it be Dan Sullivan, Daniel J. Sullivan?  Dan J. Sullivan?  His attorney seemed to want it to be as close to Sen. Sullivan's name as possible, while still be distinguishable.  
  2. Will he be designated as a Republican?  It seems that he did officially change his party to Republican and so the Division would have to use that, but I'm not certain.
  3. Will the Supreme Court tell the Division how to write his name and party, or leave that up to the discretion of the Division of Elections?  This wasn't clear.  Both attorneys said they trusted the Division to be professional.  Justice Matthews of the Superior Court instructed them.  I'm not sure that the Supreme Court will do the same.  Though there is very little time between now and when they start printing ballots tomorrow.  If the Division butchers his name and party designation, there will be no time to appeal.  
They promised to get the order out very quickly, but the opinion explaining their decision would come later.  

The recording of the session is up on KTOO Gavel Alaska and I've embedded it below so you can check my understanding of what's left with what they said.  I'll try to do the same.  

You should be able to click on the play button and listen yourself and I'll not post my sketchy notes of they arguments.



Chief Justice Carney at the end:  An extraordinary schedule.  We greatly appreciate your depth of arguments.  We will do our best to get at least an order out, will take longer to get opinion out.  Apologize for my computer,  Recessed.  

11:20 am


Related Posts


Posted by at 12:28 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)