By Saqib S. Qureshi — SCN NEWS
ANCHORAGE — A federal judge on Sunday dismissed a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump's administration seeking to prevent Alaska from certifying a potential defeat for Republican Senator Dan Sullivan in Tuesday's midterm elections, rejecting an extraordinary federal intervention in a closely contested race that could help determine control of the U.S. Senate. U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the federal government lacked the legal standing necessary to pursue the case and that its proposed examination of ballots cast for another candidate with the same name would violate voters' right to a secret ballot. The Justice Department said it would appeal the decision, leaving open the possibility of further legal proceedings before the November 3 election.
The dispute centres on the presence of two candidates named Dan Sullivan on Alaska's Senate ballot, where Republican incumbent Daniel S. Sullivan faces a competitive challenge from Democratic former Representative Mary Peltola. A third candidate, retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan, qualified for the election after receiving sufficient support in the state's primary, raising concerns among Republicans that some voters could confuse him with the incumbent senator. The Trump administration argued that the similarity between the candidates' names could affect the outcome if the election were decided by a narrow margin. Its lawsuit sought judicial intervention that could prevent certification of a result in which the Republican incumbent lost under circumstances the administration considered potentially misleading to voters.
In her 20-page ruling, Gleason rejected the government's attempt to establish federal authority over the state's election certification process, finding that the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal basis for the requested intervention. The judge also examined the practical consequences of separating ballots cast for the independent candidate and conducting an investigation into whether those voters had intended to support the Republican senator. Such a process, she concluded, could not be implemented without compromising ballot secrecy, a fundamental protection intended to prevent voters from being identified or questioned about their electoral choices. The ruling dismissed the federal government's amended complaint rather than deciding whether the independent candidate's participation was politically motivated.
The administration's proposal would have required Alaska election officials to identify and segregate votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan if those ballots appeared sufficient to change the outcome of the contest. Federal authorities then wanted an investigation into possible voter confusion before certification of the results, effectively creating an additional review process for one of the country's most closely watched Senate races. Gleason found that the government had offered no workable method for conducting such an inquiry while preserving the anonymity of voters. She also questioned the timing of the request, which was filed after early voting had begun and only days before the election.
The Justice Department responded by announcing plans to challenge the dismissal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A department spokesperson maintained that Alaska voters deserved an election free from deliberate attempts to mislead them, reflecting the administration's position that the second Sullivan's candidacy warranted federal scrutiny. The appeal means the administration is continuing its legal challenge, although Sunday's ruling leaves the requested restrictions on certification without judicial approval. Any further intervention would depend on subsequent court proceedings, and the outcome of the Senate election itself remains unknown.
Trump publicly acknowledged directing the Justice Department to pursue the lawsuit after allegations emerged that Democratic political operatives had encouraged the retired teacher to enter the race. The president and other Republicans have argued that recruiting a candidate with the same name as the incumbent could divide or confuse the Republican vote and potentially benefit Peltola. The allegations gained national attention following reporting about efforts to identify and recruit alternative candidates in Alaska's Senate contest. Peltola has denied knowing about any such recruitment effort involving members of her campaign, and the existence of those allegations has not established that voters were actually deceived.
The controversy has also prompted separate investigations into the circumstances surrounding Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy. Alaska's Republican governor, Mike Dunleavy, ordered a state investigation and raised questions about whether the election results should be certified if evidence of wrongdoing emerged. Federal authorities have also examined allegations surrounding the candidate's recruitment, although those inquiries are distinct from the civil lawsuit dismissed on Sunday. No final finding establishing that Peltola personally participated in an unlawful scheme had been announced in the reporting available at the time of the ruling.
Alaska election officials opposed the Justice Department's request, arguing that the federal government lacked authority to interfere with the state's established procedures for counting ballots and certifying results. The state maintained that election materials clearly distinguished the candidates, identifying the incumbent as the Republican senator and the other Sullivan as an independent candidate. Officials also pointed to Alaska's ranked-choice voting system, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting only one. That system provides voters with an opportunity to express support for both similarly named candidates in a preferred order, reducing the risk that a vote for one would necessarily exclude the other.
The independent candidate's place on the ballot had already been examined by Alaska's courts before the federal government filed its lawsuit. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the retired teacher could not be excluded from the election solely because his candidacy might create confusion or affect the prospects of another candidate. Following that decision, election officials prepared ballots containing both Sullivan names and proceeded with early voting. The federal lawsuit therefore sought a new intervention after state-level litigation over the candidate's eligibility had already been resolved.
The timing of the case was a significant issue because Alaska residents had begun voting before the Justice Department sought restrictions on how the results could be handled. Federal courts have traditionally been cautious about ordering major changes to election procedures shortly before voting, particularly when such changes could create uncertainty for voters and election administrators. Gleason's ruling reflected those concerns, concluding that the proposed segregation and investigation of ballots would create additional difficulties rather than provide a practical solution. The decision reinforced the importance of preserving established election procedures unless a court identifies a sufficient legal basis for intervention.
The case also raised broader constitutional questions about the federal government's role in elections administered by individual states. Under the U.S. constitutional system, states hold primary responsibility for organising and conducting federal elections, subject to applicable federal law and constitutional protections. The Justice Department has authority to enforce federal voting rights and election laws, but its powers do not automatically extend to directing how a state certifies an election because of allegations about a candidate's political motives. Gleason concluded that the government had not demonstrated the authority necessary to obtain the extraordinary relief it requested.
The dispute comes as the Trump administration has pursued a more assertive approach to election oversight ahead of the 2026 midterms, including efforts to obtain voter registration information and challenge state election procedures. Administration officials have defended those actions as necessary to protect election integrity and public confidence, while critics have argued that some of the measures represent excessive federal interference in state responsibilities. The Alaska ruling adds to a series of legal disputes over the boundaries of federal authority during a politically sensitive election period. Its significance extends beyond the immediate contest because the administration sought a remedy tied specifically to the possibility of a Republican defeat.
Alaska's Senate election is being closely watched because control of the chamber could depend on a small number of competitive races across the country. Republicans are seeking to preserve their majority, while Democrats must gain at least four seats to take control of the Senate. Peltola, who previously represented Alaska in the U.S. House, is challenging Sullivan in a state where independent voters and the ranked-choice system can produce competitive contests. Polling has indicated a close race, increasing the political importance of disputes over ballot access, candidate identification and certification procedures.
Sullivan sought to distinguish his own position from the administration's legal challenge during a television interview on Sunday, saying he would accept the result of the election regardless of whether he won. His statement came as the Justice Department prepared its appeal and as Republican officials continued to question the circumstances surrounding the independent candidate's participation. The senator's commitment to accepting the result did not resolve the federal government's separate legal arguments, but it underscored the differing positions taken by the incumbent and the administration supporting his re-election. Voters are scheduled to cast their final ballots on Tuesday, with the counting and certification process to follow under Alaska law.
The ruling leaves Alaska election officials able to proceed under existing procedures unless a higher court orders otherwise. The Justice Department's planned appeal could generate further legal developments, but no court had authorised the government to delay certification or investigate individual voters' ballot choices as of Sunday's dismissal. Separate inquiries into the independent candidate's recruitment may continue regardless of the outcome of the civil litigation. With the election two days away, the immediate political question remains whether Sullivan or Peltola will win a contest whose result could influence the balance of power in Washington.