The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 70-year-old retired teacher named Dan J. Sullivan can appear on the August primary ballot against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan — opening the door to deliberate voter confusion in one of the country's most competitive Senate races.
Why it matters: When the establishment can't win on ideas, it games the ballot. Alaska's open primary system, which advances the top four vote-getters regardless of party to a ranked-choice general election, is already engineered to favor centrists and dilute voter intent. Add a namesake candidate who initially asked to be listed under the sitting senator's exact name, and you have a system practically begging to be scammed.
The court's order, issued just three hours after hearing oral arguments, was fewer than 100 words. It affirmed a lower court ruling that found the Alaska Division of Elections had "abused its discretion" when it disqualified the challenger. The justices sent the question of how to differentiate the two Sullivans on the ballot back to election officials "within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law." A full opinion will come later — after the ballots are already being printed.
Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, a Republican, had originally disqualified the Petersburg man on June 15, finding his candidacy was not filed in good faith. Her reasoning was straightforward: Dan J. Sullivan had never registered as a Republican in more than 40 years of voting in Alaska. When he filed, he initially emailed the Division asking to be listed as "Dan S. Sullivan" — the incumbent senator's exact ballot name. He corrected himself hours later, but as state attorney Christopher Murray argued, "that's not an innocent mistake or a random mistake. There's a lot of other letters in the alphabet that could have been a typo." Beecher also noted the challenger's website closely resembled the senator's and that he had worked with a Democratic consultant who backed the senator's top Democratic rival, former Rep. Mary Peltola.
The senator's campaign didn't min words. Spokesperson Nate Adams called the challenger "the Petersburg fraud" and accused him of working with Democrats to cause confusion. The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Alaska Republican Party filed complaints alleging Democrats recruited the challenger to siphon votes. Peltola's campaign and state Democrats denied coordination. The challenger himself insists the decision to run was "my choice" and says he's frustrated with the incumbent's performance.
The Daily Caller reported that the Honest Elections Project, along with 14 states, filed amicus briefs supporting the Division of Elections' original disqualification. HEP Executive Director Jason Snead called the ruling an enabling of "'Decoy Dan's' deception campaign" and said state officials have "both the authority and the duty to protect the integrity of the democratic process from candidates who only exist to mislead and confuse voters."
The Guardian, by contrast, framed the episode as a "bizarre saga" and suggested the ruling "probably brings to a close" the controversy — a curious read given that the ballot design question remains unresolved and the election hasn't happened yet.
The Anchorage Daily News, which provided the most complete account of the challenger's perspective, reported that Dan J. Sullivan plans to register a fundraising committee called "Sullivan for Senate" — because of course he does. He told the paper he has no campaign events planned and will be busy in July with family visits and salmon fishing. A serious challenge, or a name-game operation? Voters will have to sort it out at the ballot box — assuming they can tell which Dan Sullivan is which.
That's the real rub. Alaska's ranked-choice voting system already asks voters to navigate a complex ballot. Now they'll face two Republicans named Dan Sullivan, one of whom appears to exist primarily to muddy the waters. The court says the Constitution only sets age, citizenship, and residency requirements for candidates. Everything else — including obvious bad faith — is apparently the voters' problem.
