Report Says Peltola Aides Helped Recruit Second 'Dan Sullivan' in Alaska Senate Race

The New York Times reported Wednesday that aides to Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee officials helped recruit a second candidate named Dan Sullivan to run against Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, despite earlier public denials of any connection. The challenger, Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, reached the four-candidate general election after winning 2.5% of the primary vote. President Trump accused Democrats and Peltola's campaign of fraud and perjury, and Axios reported the governor ordered a probe. The Justice Department has sued to block certification of Alaska's result if the senator narrowly loses, arguing the ballot could mislead voters. Alaska asked a court to dismiss the suit, saying officials took steps to distinguish the candidates and listed the senator as the registered Republican incumbent. The Justice Department now supports a DSCC intervention to seek discovery on a possible conspiracy.

Right-leaning outlets lead with alleged wrongdoing. Fox News stresses that nearly 1 in 10 registered voters, about 58,000 people, had voted before the report, and quotes Trump-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Bernadette Wilson blaming ranked choice voting. Breitbart carries Sullivan's Hannity interview, in which he calls the effort a secret scheme reaching the highest levels of the DSCC and cites Attorney General Todd Blanche saying it should be illegal. Left-leaning HuffPost instead argues the controversy is a non-issue, pointing to the sample ballot filed in court and the state's argument that the labels make the candidates easy to tell apart. It frames the lawsuit as brought at Trump's behest and notes the state cited a lack of evidence of confusion. Both sides rely on the Times report, but the right treats it as proof of a scheme, while the left focuses on the ballot and the lawsuit. Independent outlet Reason adds a legal view from election law professor Rick Hasen, who calls the report a bombshell if true but says it does not affect the suit, and doubts the tactic would work under ranked choice voting.