Justice Dept Sues Alaska to Block Senate Certification

The Alaska Senate lawsuit filed by the Justice Department has become one of the most closely watched election cases of the 2026 midterms, after federal lawyers asked a court to block Alaska from certifying its Senate result if the Republican incumbent loses by a margin that a second candidate with almost the same name could have affected.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Anchorage on October 22, centers on a ballot that lists both Senator Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent seeking a third term, and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher from Petersburg who is running unaffiliated with a party. The Justice Department argues that the second Sullivan is running with the intention of misleading supporters of the senator, and that his presence could confuse voters.

President Donald Trump told reporters on October 23 that he directed the lawsuit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he said, according to Reuters and other reports of his remarks.

The case arrives eight days before the November 3 midterm elections, which will decide control of Congress. Control of the Senate could come down to Alaska, where Sullivan faces Democrat Mary Peltola, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives who became the first Alaska Native elected to Congress in 2022.

What the Justice Department is asking for

The department asks a federal judge to block certification of an outcome “that may be impacted by voter confusion,” so that there can be an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan. A department spokesperson said the agency was taking “necessary steps to ensure that this frivolous candidacy does not undermine the integrity of Alaska’s election or the will of its voters.”

Importantly, the lawsuit works in only one direction as described in court filings and news reports: it seeks to hold up certification only if Senator Sullivan loses by a margin the other Sullivan’s votes could cover. If the senator wins, the lawsuit would have no practical effect on certification.

The department also contends that Daniel J. Sullivan is running as a Republican despite being, in its words, a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates, and that his campaign website uses a format, color scheme and theme similar to the senator’s campaign site. Daniel J. Sullivan changed his registration between the primary and general elections and is now running unaffiliated.

Earlier this year, the director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Carol Beecher, determined in June that Daniel J. Sullivan had not declared a “good-faith candidacy” but had instead “filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead” voters. Courts, however, kept him on the ballot: a federal judge and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that both Sullivans could remain in the race.

How close is the Alaska Senate race?

Alaska has traditionally voted Republican in presidential elections, and Trump won the state by roughly 13 percentage points in 2024, according to Al Jazeera’s reporting. This year’s Senate race, however, appears more competitive.

In August’s primary, Peltola received 49.5 percent of the vote, compared with about 41 percent for Senator Sullivan, while Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. took about 2.5 percent. Two other candidates also advanced to the November 3 election, including Gerald Heikes.

Polling since the primary has put Peltola ahead by two to three points, according to reporting on the race. In a contest that tight, even a small share of votes cast for the namesake candidate could plausibly cover the margin — which is precisely the argument the Justice Department is making.

Critics of the lawsuit argue that the same numbers cut the other way. Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, which allows a voter worried about a mix-up to rank both men. The ballot also lists the senator as the Republican incumbent, while Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. appears with no party label, according to the Associated Press.

Peltola calls the lawsuit “corrupt” and “desperate”

Peltola has sharply rejected the Justice Department’s case. In an October 23 interview, she called the lawsuit “desperate” and “clearly corruption,” and said it was not playing well with Alaskans.

“It is not playing well with Alaskans at all, and it’s sending a message that Dan Sullivan does not believe that Alaskans are sophisticated enough to know exactly who they’re voting for and what the implication of their vote is,” she said.

Legal experts quoted by USA Today have also questioned the case. Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, called the lawsuit “absurd” and said the department has “an exceptionally weak hand,” while warning that he worried the department could try to interfere in vote counting after Election Day. Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, called the lawsuit “abusive” and “nearly frivolous,” while noting that coverage of it could motivate Republicans to vote for the right Sullivan.

Some experts also note that the Justice Department does not traditionally have a role in determining who is on a state ballot, and that litigants typically wait until after votes are counted to challenge them.

Why the case matters beyond Alaska

The lawsuit highlights the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive approach to election oversight, according to Reuters. The administration has pressed states for voter-registration data and argued that stricter measures are needed to ensure public confidence in the vote. Critics, including both Democratic and some Republican election officials, view the moves as federal overreach.

The case also fits a broader pattern in the final week of the campaign. The Justice Department has separately been involved in disputes over California’s midterm elections, and the administration’s election actions are being watched closely by both parties as early voting continues.

For Alaska voters, the practical question is simpler: whether the state’s results will be certified on the normal timetable, or whether a federal court will pause that process while investigators examine votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. Alaska’s remoteness and complex voting procedures already mean counting can take time, and experts say a court-ordered pause could extend uncertainty.

What happens next

• The federal court in Anchorage will consider whether to block certification in the narrow circumstances described in the lawsuit.
• Alaska voters will decide the race on November 3, with ranked-choice voting in effect.
• Both campaigns are expected to continue campaigning heavily in the final week, with the lawsuit itself now part of the debate.
• Legal scholars will watch whether the department pursues similar pre-election challenges in other states.

For now, both Sullivans remain on the ballot, and Peltola remains the leading challenger. Whether the Justice Department’s lawsuit changes the outcome — or simply changes the argument about it — will not be known until the votes are counted and, potentially, until a judge rules on certification.

Key points

• The Justice Department sued Alaska on October 22 over two candidates named Dan Sullivan.
• It asks a judge to block certification only if Senator Sullivan loses by a margin the namesake’s votes could cover.
• Trump said he directed the lawsuit: “I’m the one that said do it.”
• Peltola called the case “desperate” and “clearly corruption.”
• Alaska’s Supreme Court has already ruled both Sullivans may stay on the ballot.

Sources: Reuters, USA Today, Al Jazeera, Associated Press reporting, October 2026.