The midterm Senate race in Alaska has emerged as a tight contest between Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan and Democrat Mary Peltola.
Polls suggest Peltola, a former congresswoman for the state, has eked out a slender lead, but many observers believe the race could be in for a photo finish.
For Donald Trump, a Democrat victory in Alaska would be a serious blow to his party’s hopes of retaining control of the Senate.
Yet, rather than campaign harder in the state, or announce policies aimed at winning over voters, the President has instead ordered the Department of Justice (DoJ) to sue Alaska, alleging a potential loss for Sullivan cannot be certified.
The reason: there is more than one Dan Sullivan running to become the next Alaskan Senator in Congress.
A tale of two Daniel Sullivans
Daniel S. Sullivan was elected as Senator for Alaska in 2015, having previously served as the state’s attorney general.
After initially declaring his opposition to Trump’s candidacy in 2016, Sullivan has since become a reliable ally of the President.
The Senator voted to support much of Trump’s signature legislation, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and played a role in convincing the President to open up national parks land in Alaska for logging and other commercial uses.
This is Sullivan’s second re-election fight, having narrowly seen off a challenge from Democrat-backed independent Al Gross in 2020, and he is struggling to ground against Peltola due to significant affordability concerns in the state and Trump’s flagging popularity with voters.
Complicating matters is the presence of Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired school teacher, who launched his own campaign and garnered enough votes to make it onto the final ballot in August’s nonpartisan primary race.
Daniel J. Sullivan insists he is running of his own accord, but Republican officials at state and federal level have accused him of being a “plant” by Democrats as part of an effort to siphon off votes.
A legal bid to kick him off the ballot failed at the Alaska Supreme Court, and Republican election officials have since determined he will be listed without a party affiliation on the ballot and under his full name: Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.
Sullivan, the Republican Senator, will be listed as Dan S. Sullivan alongside his party affiliation.
The word “incumbent” will also appear next to his name on the ballot.
Lawsuit could prevent Democrat from being declared the winner
Despite the efforts of state Republicans to differentiate between both Sullivans, Trump on Friday told reporters he had instructed the DoJ to sue Alaska in order to prevent the result from being certified.
“I’m the one that said do it,” the President replied when questioned about news of the case, adding Daniel J. Sullivan “has nothing to do with politics” and branding his candidacy “disgraceful”.
The extraordinary intervention, if upheld by the courts, would prevent Peltola, or any other candidate, being officially declared the winner in the midterm race.
Specifically, the DoJ is claiming the result cannot be certified “if: (1) Senator Sullivan does not win the election; and (2) had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast instead for Senator Sullivan and Alaska’s rank-choice process played out accordingly, Senator Sullivan would have won the election”.
According to polling group FiftyPlusOne, Peltola leads Sullivan 49.7 per cent to 47.6 per cent – a roughly two point difference.
Daniel J. Sullivan won just over two per cent of the vote in August’s primary, meaning if he is able to replicate those numbers on 3 November he would likely ensure a victory for Democrats.
Trump himself has noted how fine the margins are between Sullivan and Peltola.
In a social media post on Wednesday, in which he claimed Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy amounted to “CHEATING in an Election”, the President noted: “Even 1, 2, or 3% could make the difference”.
It is possible Peltola could yet win by a margin greater than however many votes are secured by Daniel J. Sullivan come polling day, but even if she fails to do so it is unclear whether the DoJ’s lawsuit would prove successful.
US elections are controlled by the states, not the federal government, and while there is scope for private individuals and candidates to challenge results the DoJ’s use of the National Voter Registration Act to justify the suit may not withstand legal scrutiny.
In its filling, the DoJ argues a clause in the preamble to the act requires states to “protect the integrity” of elections, which in turn conveys power on federal courts to overturn election results.
Reacting to news of the lawsuit, Peltola dismissed that argument.
“This is a blatant, despicable political threat,” she wrote in a Substack post.