What the Lawsuit Asks For
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on October 22, 2026, asking a federal court in Anchorage to block Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate election result if the Republican incumbent loses under certain conditions. The case is pending, and no judge has blocked certification yet — the department is asking for a conditional block, not reporting one that already happened.
The lawsuit concerns the November 3, 2026 Senate race between incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan and Democratic former Representative Mary Peltola, a contest that could help decide control of the U.S. Senate. The Justice Department argues that a third candidate on the ballot, another Republican named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., could confuse voters and change the outcome.
Specifically, the department asks the court to stop certification of any result “that may be impacted by voter confusion” until there is an investigation into whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant for Senator Sullivan. In other words, the block the department wants would only apply if Senator Sullivan loses and would have won had all votes for the second Sullivan gone to him instead.
The department’s argument rests on the National Voter Registration Act, which aims to protect the integrity of the electoral process. A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is taking “necessary steps to ensure that this frivolous candidacy does not undermine the integrity of Alaska’s election or the will of its voters.”
Why There Are Two Dan Sullivans on the Ballot
The confusion at the center of the case comes from two men with nearly identical names. Senator Dan S. Sullivan, the incumbent Republican, is running for re-election. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher, is also on the ballot, running unaffiliated with a party after changing his registration between the primary and general elections.
The Justice Department alleges that the second Sullivan is running “with the intention of misleading supporters of Senator Sullivan into voting for him.” The lawsuit says his campaign website uses a format, color scheme and overall theme similar to the senator’s campaign website, and contends that he is a known longtime supporter of Democratic candidates despite running as a Republican.
This is not the first challenge to the second Sullivan’s candidacy. On June 15, 2026, Carol Beecher, the director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, determined that Daniel J. Sullivan had not declared a “good-faith candidacy” but had instead “filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead” voters. The senator’s campaign also tried to remove him from the ballot earlier in the election season.
Those efforts failed in court. A federal judge and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled to keep the second Sullivan’s campaign intact, and in June 2026 the Alaska Supreme Court upheld his reinstatement, allowing him to compete. The Justice Department’s new lawsuit is a federal attempt to revisit the same dispute, this time by targeting certification of the result rather than the ballot itself.
The August all-party primary showed the shape of the race: Peltola received 49.5% of the vote, Senator Sullivan 41.4%, and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. 2.5%, according to figures reported by NBC News. Peltola and Senator Sullivan are the only likely winners of the race, while the second Sullivan rarely stands a chance in polling, which is part of why the department’s theory focuses on a narrow-margin scenario rather than a large one.
What the Candidates and the White House Have Said
President Donald Trump said publicly on October 23 that he directed the Justice Department to bring the case, telling reporters, “I’m the one that said do it.” The president has regularly complained about the presence of the second Sullivan on the ballot.
Attorney General Todd Blanche said on October 24 that the department did not coordinate with any campaign or candidate in filing the lawsuit. In a social media post, he wrote that the litigation “seeks to ensure that after Alaskans cast their ballots, they are preserved in a manner so that only Alaska’s governing officials have the information necessary to make a determination as to whether Alaskan voters were confused or mislead.”
Peltola responded sharply. In an October 23 interview, she called the lawsuit “desperate” and “clearly corruption”, and said it was “not playing well with Alaskans at all.” She argued that the suit sends a message that Senator 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.”
Legal experts have questioned whether the department’s argument will succeed. Derek Muller, an election law professor at Notre Dame Law School, described the legal theory as “strange and unusual” and said he had never seen the introductory provisions of the federal voter registration law used in this way. “They’re just plucking from the preface and saying this gives them a free-wheeling right to enjoin operations in a state, and I just don’t think a court is going to buy that,” Muller told CNN. He also said it is unclear how a court could intervene in the way the department proposes.
Critics, including both Democratic and some Republican election officials, view the move as federal overreach into a role the Constitution largely leaves to states. Supporters of the suit, including the administration, frame it as a step to protect voter intent in a race where two similar names appear on the same ballot.
What Happens Next
What we know: The lawsuit was filed October 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, and the case is before U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason. The election is November 3, 2026. The department wants certification paused only in the specific scenario where Senator Sullivan loses but would have won without the second Sullivan’s votes.
What we don’t know: No ruling has been reported yet, and it is not clear whether the court will act before Election Day or how it would carry out the investigation the department requests. It is also unknown whether the margin in the race will be narrow enough for the department’s scenario to apply at all.
For voters, the practical point is simple: the lawsuit does not change how anyone votes on November 3, and it does not cancel the election. What it could change, if a judge agrees, is whether Alaska’s result is certified on the normal schedule or held while officials examine whether any votes were cast for the wrong Sullivan. That question will now be decided in federal court, in a race both parties are watching closely for control of the Senate.
Related coverage: Texas has also taken legal action against a major company this month, as covered in our report on Texas suing OpenAI and Sam Altman, and New Mexico secured a major penalty against Meta, covered in Meta’s $25 billion New Mexico penalty.
