United States v. Alaska. District of Alaska, Judge Sharon Gleason. Filed Thursday, October 22, by the Department of Justice, asking that Alaska not certify the Senate result if Mary Peltola wins while a second candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. remains on the ballot, on a theory of voter confusion, resting on a purpose clause in the National Voter Registration Act that the complaint quotes with its first six words removed. The president, asked about it Friday: “Well, I’m the one that said, ‘do it.’”

What moved. On Friday the League of Women Voters of Alaska and other voting rights groups moved to intervene, called the suit “frivolous,” and asked the court to “consider sanctions against the attorneys” who signed it. Over the weekend Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee moved to intervene and to dismiss; her filing says “DOJ’s complaint is wholly baseless” and that the suit could be used to “falsely suggest that there is doubt” about Alaska’s results. Common Cause and the other proposed intervenors: the relief sought “risks disenfranchising Alaska residents entirely.” On Monday the State of Alaska, the actual defendant, filed its response, asking for immediate dismissal. Its filing says the ballots were printed months ago “without legal challenge,” that the division “designed the ballot to distinguish” the two men “as much as possible,” by middle initial, by “Jr.,” by “Dan” against “Daniel,” by party and by the word “Incumbent,” and that a voter who is still unsure can rank both Sullivans first and second. It says investigating voter intent would breach the secret ballot. On the premise, it closes the door: the United States “has no legal authority” over how candidates “secure their place on the ballot in state elections,” and “has no legally cognizable interest in securing a particular election outcome.” Also Monday, Gleason put the case on a clock, noting the department had waited “nearly four months” after the Alaska Supreme Court ordered the second Sullivan onto the ballot. The government had until 5 p.m. Tuesday to respond to the intervention motions. Replies are due at noon today. Her order says the court “intends to issue a ruling by 5:00 p.m. on October 28, 2026,” which is this afternoon. If she lets the intervenors in, the government must answer the motions to dismiss by 5 p.m. Thursday, and the dismissal ruling could come Thursday night or Friday.

What it means. The state being sued and the Democrat whose win would trigger the suit are on the same side of the v., and the attorney general spent Sunday on two networks saying the suit is “not saying, ‘don’t certify’” while his complaint asks the court to withhold certification. The state’s filing is the one to read, because it comes from the division, under a Republican lieutenant governor, that tried to remove the retired schoolteacher itself in June and lost in two courts. It is now telling a federal judge that it fixed the problem on the ballot and that Washington has no business here. Joshua Douglas, an election law scholar at the University of Kentucky, calls it “a press release disguised as a lawsuit.” The department’s answer to that, if it has one, is due on paper Thursday, provided the intervenors are let in.

Next date. 5 p.m. today on intervention. Then Thursday, the election on Tuesday, ranked choice tabulation November 18, certification targeted for November 25, and a five-day recount window after that.

Subscribe now

Read more