Second 'Dan Sullivan' on Alaska Senate Ballot Prompts Fraud Claims and Justice Department Action

A retired teacher named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. will appear on Alaska's U.S. Senate ballot next week alongside Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan and Democratic nominee Mary Peltola, and the Justice Department has been drawn into the dispute. The New York Times reported that allies or aides of Peltola helped recruit candidates to "stack" the ballot against the incumbent. President Donald Trump ordered a Justice Department investigation and called it election fraud. U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman said Democrats had orchestrated a conspiracy to prop up a sham candidate. Peltola has rejected the accusations, saying the dispute distracts from voters' concerns. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., of Petersburg, announced his candidacy on May 29, days before the June 1 filing deadline, and has denied any Democratic push behind it. Alaska's elections director tried to remove him, but two state courts restored him and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed. The ballot lists the senator as "Registered Republican" and "Incumbent," and the other man with no party. Peltola beat Sen. Sullivan by 8 points in the August primary, and the second Sullivan took 2.5 percent.

Left-leaning Slate opens by questioning the Times' implicit framing of the story as an election-swinging trick. It stresses that Alaska uses ranked choice voting, so confused voters can pick both Sullivans, that Peltola's primary margin dwarfed the second Sullivan's share, and that officials distinguished the names on the ballot. It still says the coincidence is hard to believe. Right-leaning Daily Wire instead calls the second Sullivan a dirty trick by Democrats and gives the legal and procedural history, including the court rulings and the ballot labels. It argues the Justice Department's lawsuit is unlikely to stop any ballot from being counted and points to state, FEC, grand jury and Senate avenues. Both sides cite the Times report, the ballot labeling and the court outcome. They differ in whether they treat the scheme as consequential or as overblown, and in whether they focus on electoral impact or on legal remedies. Al Jazeera adds a separate angle, comparing the tactic with past ballot stacking and asking whether it works.