On October 22, 2026, twelve days before the midterm election, the Justice Department sued the State of Alaska, elections director Carol Beecher, the state's election boards and the State Ballot Counting Review Board in federal court in Anchorage (United States v. State of Alaska, 3:26-cv-00376-SLG), asking a judge to bar the state from certifying its U.S. Senate election if Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses. The complaint was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. and an Anchorage assistant U.S. attorney, not by the Civil Rights Division, which normally handles federal election litigation. It was assigned to Judge Sharon L. Gleason.
The suit rests on the presence of a second candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan of Petersburg, who appears on the ballot without a party label and whom the complaint describes as a candidate whose “sole purpose” is “to benefit the Peltola campaign,” referring to Democrat Mary Peltola. Beecher had tried to keep him off the ballot in a June 15 letter finding his filing was made “with a purpose to confuse or mislead,” but a state trial court reversed her on June 26 and the Alaska Supreme Court summarily affirmed on June 29. In the August 18 primary (corrected October 27; see below) Peltola took 49.5 percent, Sen. Sullivan 41.4 percent and Daniel J. Sullivan 2.5 percent, according to the complaint.
The department's single count invokes the National Voter Registration Act's statement of purpose, that states should “protect the integrity of the electoral process,” and asks the court to declare that certifying “any result that may be impacted by voter confusion” would violate federal law and to bar certification of such a result “pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan.” The complaint defines a result as “impacted” only if Sen. Sullivan loses and would have won had every Daniel J. Sullivan vote gone to him. The relief is therefore one-directional: a Sullivan win would be certified, a narrow Peltola win would not. The AP noted that Alaska's ranked-choice system lets confused voters rank both men, and that the state's Republican officials decided how the two would be listed.
The filing followed a week of pressure from the president. On October 21 Trump posted on Truth Social, “It's ridiculous that the Court didn't stop this SCAM. Even 1, 2, or 3% could make the difference,” and, “We are looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot,” CNN reported. At a Wasilla rally the week before he said the ranked-choice system was open to “damn bad cheating,” Politico reported. The same day the suit was filed, Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters in Norfolk that he could not rule out the department acting to block certification in some “doomsday” scenario.
Election-law specialists across the spectrum were dismissive. Notre Dame professor Derek Muller called the theory “strange and unusual” and said on his blog it was “one of the worst ones I've ever seen,” adding that “it is designed to win the press release rather than the litigation.” Of the proposed investigation into voters' intent, he said, “This is just the stuff that is just impossible to measure after the fact.” Ben Ginsberg, formerly the Republican National Committee's top election lawyer, told CNN there were many reasons a federal court would not grant the request and observed that, like the department's California ballot suit, this one was filed by political appointees in Washington who do not normally run such cases. DSCC executive director Devan Barber called it a “sham lawsuit to overturn the will of Alaska voters and steal an election when he loses.” Beecher's office did not respond to requests for comment. As of October 23 the department had filed no emergency motion, and Alaska expects to begin ranked-choice tabulation on November 18.
Update (October 27, 2026): Trump said he ordered the suit. “I'm the one that said do it,” he told reporters on landing in Florida on October 23, the AP, Politico and the Guardian reported (The Hill rendered it “I'm the one who said do it”). Asked the next day about concerns over the department's independence, he said, “So I recommended it to the DOJ. They looked at it, they agreed with me, and they've gone to court,” according to the Roll Call Factbase transcript.
On October 25 Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote on X that the department “does not seek to stop any ballot from being cast or to stop the certification of Alaska's election” and that “The lawsuit was written by Justice Department attorneys and the Department did not coordinate with any campaign or candidate, but rather relied solely on federal law,” CNBC reported. The complaint, described above, asks the court to bar certification of a result affected by voter confusion, as it defines one, pending an investigation.
Opponents moved quickly. Peltola's campaign committee, Alaskans for Mary, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee moved to intervene on October 23 (Dkt. 5), as did the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Common Cause (Dkt. 6). On October 25 the campaign and the DSCC filed a proposed motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8-1) arguing that the National Voter Registration Act regulates only voter registration, that the department has no authority to sue over the ballot, and that the Purcell principle bars the relief this close to the election. It opens, “This case never should have been filed.”
On October 26 Judge Sharon Gleason granted expedited consideration (Dkt. 15): the department's response to the intervention motions was due by 5 p.m. on October 27, she intends to rule by 5 p.m. on October 28, and if she admits the intervenors the department must answer their motions to dismiss by 5 p.m. on October 29.
Shortly afterward, Alaska's elections officials, represented by the state Department of Law, moved to dismiss the suit “immediately, with prejudice, because the complaint has no legal basis,” arguing that “the United States lacks authority to intervene in state elections at all, much less in support of a favored candidate” (Dkt. 18), and asked for a decision by November 2 (Dkt. 16).
Others objected too. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who has endorsed Sen. Sullivan, wrote, “The Department of Justice should never have filed this lawsuit.” Walter Olson of the libertarian Cato Institute told the Alaska Beacon the suit “borders on frivolous in its arguments.” Daniel J. Sullivan told the Beacon it “seems a gross misuse of the Justice Department,” and Sen. Sullivan's campaign said, “We'll let the DOJ complaint run its course.”
Late on October 24, Trump attacked Murkowski on Truth Social for being “against the DOJ filing a Lawsuit” and warned that federal help for Alaska would stop if Democrats won the seat (see Trump Has Tied Federal Help to Republican Wins in Seven States With Key Senate Races, CNN Finds).
Corrections: the primary was held on August 18, not August 28 as this entry said; the department's complaint gives August 28, but the court's October 26 order and the State's motion both give August 18. On the ballot Daniel J. Sullivan appears with no party affiliation (Dkt. 15); the State's motion says that when he filed his declaration of candidacy he changed his party affiliation from undeclared to Republican (Dkt. 18).
Update (October 28, 2026): On October 27 Judge Gleason granted the State's motion to expedite consideration of its motion to dismiss (Dkt. 19). In granting expedited briefing she noted the timing, writing, Alaska Public Media reported, “After Alaskans had already begun casting their ballots for the November 2026 election ... the United States initiated this action on October 22, 2026,” nearly four months after the Alaska Supreme Court ordered Daniel J. Sullivan onto the ballot. The same day the State told the court it does not oppose the motions to intervene by Peltola's campaign and the DSCC and by the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Common Cause (Dkt. 20); the Justice Department filed its opposition to both (Dkt. 26). As of the last docket entry on October 27, Gleason had not ruled on intervention or on the motions to dismiss; a ruling was expected this week.
University of Kentucky law professor Joshua Douglas told Alaska Public Media, “This case is a press release disguised as a lawsuit.” Defending the suit on CNN on Sunday, October 25, Attorney General Todd Blanche said, “There could be a crime. But the real wrong here is that Alaskans are going to be confused and will not have their vote heard,” the Hill reported.
Update (October 29, 2026): On October 28, after The New York Times reported that aides to Peltola's campaign and DSCC staff had been involved in an effort to recruit Daniel J. Sullivan (see Trump Demands Mary Peltola Be Prosecuted and Removed From the Alaska Ballot After a New York Times Report, including the caveats on that report), the Justice Department withdrew its opposition to the campaign's motion to intervene, “Given a change in circumstances” (Dkt. 33). The notice, signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., said the Times had reported that the campaign and the DSCC “orchestrated a sprawling conspiracy to recruit and prop up a sham candidate for the purpose of deceiving Alaskan voters.”
The department said it “intends to seek expedited discovery from the Campaign regarding the reported conspiracy, including as to whether the Campaign attempted to deceive the Court by seeking an expedited ruling on a motion to dismiss when the Campaign may have been aware of the New York Times reporting before it was published.” It kept opposing intervention by the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Common Cause.
The same day Judge Gleason granted both motions (Dkt. 35): Alaskans for Mary and the DSCC as of right, and the League of Women Voters group permissively, finding the State might not adequately represent its interests. She accepted both proposed motions to dismiss as filed and kept the schedule: the United States must respond “by Thursday, October 29, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.,” and the intervenors may reply by 2 p.m. on October 30. Election-law scholar Rick Hasen wrote that the Times story, “if true, strikes me as a political bombshell,” but that “The lawsuit is not going anywhere for any number of reasons,” the Juneau Independent reported. No ruling on the motions to dismiss had been issued as of Dkt. 35.
Update (October 30, 2026): The Justice Department did not answer the motions to dismiss on October 29. It filed a first amended complaint instead (Dkt. 43), adding a second count under the Supremacy Clause and asking the court to declare that certifying a result “impacted by voter confusion, as defined above” would both breach the NVRA and be preempted; the injunction it seeks is worded as before. The amended complaint leans on the New York Times report: “Although what the New York Times reports is not always true, its reporting here aligns with what the United States has been alleging on information and belief.” In a filing the same day (Dkt. 46) the department argued that the amendment made the pending motions to dismiss moot, citing the Times report and Gov. Mike Dunleavy's order of a state investigation.
The State (Dkt. 55), Alaskans for Mary and the DSCC (Dkt. 57), and the League of Women Voters group (Dkt. 60) moved to dismiss the amended complaint that day. On October 30 Judge Gleason denied the original motions as moot (Dkt. 63) and ordered: “The United States shall file its response to all three Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint at Docket 55, Docket 57, and Docket 60 by Friday, October 30, 2026, at 1:00 p.m.” Replies are due by noon on October 31 (Dkt. 64). This replaces the schedule given in the October 29 update. Whether the department met the deadline was not known when this update was written, and no ruling on the merits had been issued as of Dkt. 65. Dunleavy has since declined to commit to certifying a Peltola win (see Trump Demands Mary Peltola Be Prosecuted and Removed From the Alaska Ballot After a New York Times Report).
Update (October 31, 2026): The Justice Department met the October 30 deadline with an omnibus opposition to the three motions to dismiss (Dkt. 67) and, the same day, moved for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 66), asking for a decision “by Monday, November 2, 2026” (Dkt. 70). It now seeks “an order directing Defendants to preserve and segregate all ballots ranking Daniel J. Sullivan for the purposes of investigating whether such ranking was the product of voter confusion, should such an investigation become necessary,” calling these “modest precautionary measures” that “will be impossible after Election Day.” It also asks for expedited discovery of Alaskans for Mary's and the DSCC's “internal and external conversations regarding its efforts to recruit Daniel J. Sullivan to run for office.” NBC News noted that the filing “did not spell out a process for ballot review or explain how reviewing a ballot would show if a voter was confused about ranking the candidates.”
The State opposed expedited consideration the same day (Dkt. 72), saying the Division of Elections “does not destroy federal election ballots on Election Day, it preserves them for twenty-two months after the election,” and that because ballots are commingled in the ballot box, workers could not set aside those ranking Daniel J. Sullivan during voting without breaching constitutional protections for ballot secrecy. The League of Women Voters group (Dkt. 73) and Alaskans for Mary and the DSCC (Dkt. 74) joined the opposition. On October 31 all three filed replies supporting dismissal (Dkts. 75, 76, 77); the State wrote that the relief demanded is “inappropriate and not even possible given Alaskan voters' vital right to ballot secrecy.” No ruling had appeared as of Dkt. 77. U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman, who signed the filings with Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, has confirmed a parallel criminal investigation (see Trump Demands Mary Peltola Be Prosecuted and Removed From the Alaska Ballot After a New York Times Report).
Update (November 1, 2026): Sen. Dan S. Sullivan said on CNN's “State of the Union” that he would accept the outcome. Asked by Jake Tapper whether he would accept the results only if he won, he answered, “No, I'm going to accept the election results,” The Hill reported. His campaign had earlier said it would let the complaint run its course. He also accused Peltola of being “directly involved” in the alleged recruitment of Daniel J. Sullivan, which she and national Democrats deny, The Hill reported. The Justice Department's suit remained pending.
The State has also argued, the AP reported, that ballots set aside or not “wouldn't reveal any voter's reason for voting for Dan J. Sullivan.” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer asked Peltola's former campaign manager, Elisa Rios, and Democratic operative Jerid Kurtz for in-person transcribed interviews, on November 5 and November 6 respectively, according to The Hill. No ruling on dismissal or on segregating ballots had appeared as of Dkt. 78, the latest filing the tracker could read, an October 31 motion by proposed intervenor David R. Weber seeking a decision on his own request to intervene by November 3.
Update (November 2, 2026): On November 1, two days before the election, Judge Gleason dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend, and judgment was entered (Dkts. 79, 80). She held that the department lacks Article III standing: “the Court cannot grant the United States the relief it seeks because the United States has failed to establish the redressability prerequisite for Article III standing.” The motions to dismiss by the State, the campaign and the League of Women Voters group were granted, and the department's motion for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction was denied as moot.
“The absence of any explanation from the United States as to how its requested relief could redress its alleged injury while simultaneously maintaining the secrecy of the ballot is telling,” she wrote. Segregating ballots so voters could be investigated “is not a remedy that this Court can or should order,” she wrote, saying it would violate Alaskans' right to a secret ballot. She said the Purcell principle “strongly cautions” against the relief, and of the department's requests, “These requests certainly involve the time, place, and manner of Alaska's election, which are the responsibilities of the State, not the executive branch of the federal government.” Further amendment, she wrote, “would be futile because this Court lacks the authority to order that certain ballots cast by Alaskans be segregated so that federal law enforcement officials can conduct an unspecified investigation of the voters who cast them.”
The department filed a notice of appeal the same day (Dkt. 81), signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward; Just Security's tracker lists it as Ninth Circuit No. 26-7304. The tracker found no appellate ruling as of November 2. “Alaskan voters deserve a fair election, not to be misled in an attempt to rig outcomes,” spokesperson Kiersten Pels told NPR. A department spokesperson told CBS News the judge ruled on procedural grounds “but did not dispute the argument of the United States that Daniel J. Sullivan (a/k/a Decoy Dan) entered the race as a frivolous candidate to confuse voters.” CNBC noted that Gleason did not resolve whether he was recruited; her order accepted the amended complaint's allegations as true for purposes of the motions. CBS reported that the criminal investigation continues and that nobody in the race has been charged.
In a Pod Force One interview that aired November 2, the New York Post's Miranda Devine asked Trump, “Are you confident that these elections will be secure?” He answered, “No, well look, when you have Alaska where they look for a guy, not only, you know people don't - he even looks like Dan Sullivan,” the Mirror US reported. The tracker has not heard the interview; the Post's own column on it also describes him pointing to Alaska.