Justice Department Steps Up Scrutiny of Alaska Senate Race

Read the facts in this story slowly, because the Justice Department is counting on you not to.

The department has sued to challenge certification of an Alaska Senate election that has not happened, in the event the Republican incumbent loses, and only if he loses because of "voter confusion." A Justice Department official has acknowledged investigators know of no confirmed case of a voter casting a ballot for the wrong candidate. So the theory of harm is a harm no one can find, and the remedy is triggered only by the result Republicans fear. That is not law enforcement. It is a pre-written excuse.

Now the arithmetic. In the August top-four primary, Mary Peltola took 49.5 percent and Dan Sullivan 41.4. The retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. got 2.5. Hand every one of his votes to the incumbent, as if each voter had been hopelessly befuddled, and Peltola still leads by more than five points. The "confusion" argument can't explain the gap that exists. It can only be stretched to cover a loss that hasn't happened yet.

The strongest version of the other side's case deserves a fair hearing. Name-alike candidates have been used as spoilers, and if anyone recruited, paid or coached a man to run in order to siphon votes, that is a real wrong and should be prosecuted. The Left should say so without squirming. Democrats have no standing to lecture about dirty tricks if their operatives pulled one, and Peltola's campaign and the DSCC are right to deny involvement on the record. Republicans have also run their share of ballot-manipulation schemes, including the 2020 effort to prop up Green Party candidates in swing states, so nobody here has clean hands to wave around.

But look at who is already investigating. Governor Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, has ordered the state Department of Public Safety to examine whether Alaska law was broken. That is the proper channel. States run their elections, and Republicans spent decades telling us so. Where, then, is the federal interest in a civil suit that threatens to cloud certification? A criminal inquiry would follow evidence wherever it leads. A civil action aimed at certification follows the vote count.

The man on the ballot says he sincerely wants to serve. He is a retired teacher with a name his parents gave him. In a country where any eligible citizen can file for office, "he has a similar name to a senator" is not evidence of fraud. If it were, every Smith, Johnson and Sullivan with civic ambition becomes a suspect the moment a powerful incumbent feels crowded. Subpoenas can be a punishment of their own, and being dragged into a federal inquiry for running for office is a cost that falls on ordinary people far harder than on the powerful.

Then there is ranked-choice voting, which Alaska voters approved and which Republicans have never stopped trying to undo. A system built to let voters rank their real preferences is now being cast as a confusion machine. Voters are being told, in effect, that they cannot be trusted to read a ballot with four names on it. That condescension is the engine of the case. Alaskans, who choose among candidates every cycle, are presumed too dim to tell Dan S. from Daniel J.

This is the part that should alarm anyone, whatever their party. A Justice Department that sues in advance to preserve the option of disputing a certification is announcing that the result will be accepted only if it comes out right. We have seen where that road goes. The honest standard is simple: investigate real crimes with real evidence, let the state process work, count the votes, and certify them. If Alaskans choose Peltola, the Justice Department should not be the one telling them they were confused.