Let's start by being honest about the part Democrats would prefer to skip. If people tied to Mary Peltola's campaign or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee really went looking for a second Sullivan to siphon votes from the first, that is a sleazy trick, and it deserves condemnation from the party's own side. Democrats cannot claim to be the defenders of clean elections while shopping for a candidate whose main qualification is his surname. Both Peltola's campaign and the DSCC deny involvement, and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. denies he is running to mislead anyone. Those denials should be tested. But by whom, and with what remedy?
That is where Trump's demand falls apart. He wants a Senate candidate removed from the ballot, calls the alleged scheme "election fraud," and says he directed the Justice Department to sue to block certification of results affected by voter confusion. The reports describe a recruitment effort, not a stolen count, not forged ballots, not suppressed voters. Recruiting a same-name candidate is a dirty trick that state law can address, and in this case the state's own election officials say they handled the confusion risk. The incumbent is listed as "Sullivan, Dan. S." and identified as the Republican incumbent. The other is "Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr." Alaska's Supreme Court let the retired teacher stay on the ballot. A president who dislikes that outcome is not a court.
And the remedy is bizarre. Even on the worst reading, the alleged scheme was meant to hurt Sullivan. The proposed punishment is to remove the beneficiary of the scheme, a candidate the voters have not yet had a chance to choose. That is not a penalty for fraud. It is a penalty for being Trump's opponent, with fraud as the pretext.
We have seen this before. After 2020, the claim was that elections were so tainted that certification should be withheld, delayed or reversed. It came with pressure on state officials and lawsuits that courts rejected. The new element is that the claim now comes from inside the executive branch, with the Justice Department as the instrument. A federal prosecutor's office is being asked to intervene in a state's certification process because the president is angry about a ballot. If that works, every November contains a new invitation: find a name, a mailer, a ballot-design quirk, and take it to Washington.
Republicans should dislike this too, if the federalism they preach means anything. For years they told us elections belong to the states, that Washington should keep out, and that Alaskans and Arizonans know their own rules. Alaska's officials are now saying exactly that, and the party of states' rights is silent or cheering the other way.
There is also the matter of precedent for spoiler tricks. In 2020, a Florida state Senate race was swung by a no-party candidate with the same name as the Democrat, and the response ran through state prosecutors and state courts. Nobody argued that the president should decide who stays on the ballot. That is the model: investigate, charge if there is a crime, and let voters decide who governs.
Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, which makes this scheme less effective than it would be elsewhere. A voter who ranks the wrong Sullivan first can still rank the right one second. Voters can also read a ballot that labels the incumbent as the incumbent. The case that thousands of Alaskans are too confused to vote is thin, and it is insulting.
Democrats should do two things. First, open their books. If anyone connected to the party touched this effort, say so, fire them, and disclose it. Second, fight the lawsuit without apology. A party can be embarrassed and still refuse to let a president pick the field. The way to answer a possible dirty trick is a fair election, not a Justice Department that treats certification as a bargaining chip.
How it may affect me
If you vote in Alaska, check the ballot carefully: the incumbent is listed as "Sullivan, Dan. S." and the other candidate as "Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr." Because Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, you can rank both, but rank in the order you intend. Certification timing could also become contested if the lawsuit continues.
