The Alaska Senate election is facing a major legal challenge as the US Justice Department investigates claims of a plan to recruit candidates to affect the race. Federal officials have asked a judge to stop the state from certifying the results if Republican Senator Dan Sullivan loses by a small margin.
The case comes just days before the November 3 midterm elections. The race could help decide control of the US Senate, where Republicans are working to protect their majority. Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, a former member of the US House of Representatives, is challenging Sullivan.
The dispute centers on Alaska’s ranked choice voting system and two candidates who share the same name. The ballot includes Senator Daniel S. Sullivan and retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan. Peltola and another candidate are also running in the contest.
Federal officials are investigating claims that Democrats helped bring the retired teacher into the race. Critics say the move may have been designed to confuse voters and affect the result. However, the claims remain disputed, and no criminal charge has been announced.
A report published earlier this week claimed that Peltola’s aides worked with campaign lawyers and senior staff from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to recruit Daniel J. Sullivan. The claims have not been independently verified.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has denied any role in recruiting the retired teacher. The committee has also accused Republicans of supporting other candidates to improve their own chances in elections. Daniel J. Sullivan has denied working with Peltola’s campaign.
Peltola’s campaign has not responded to a request for comment. However, its lawyers have asked US District Judge Sharon Gleason to dismiss the Justice Department’s lawsuit. They argue that the federal government lacks the legal authority to bring the case.
President Donald Trump has called for Peltola to be prosecuted over the allegations. Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, has also ordered a state law enforcement investigation. Neither man has identified a specific law that they believe may have been broken.
A Justice Department official said no decision had been made on whether to bring criminal charges. The department is also pursuing a civil case aimed at preventing the state from certifying the results under certain conditions.
Michael Heyman, the top federal prosecutor in Alaska, told reporters on Friday that the department plans to seek a preliminary injunction. This is a court order that can prevent an action while a case is still under review.
The requested order would stop the certification of election results if Senator Sullivan loses by a narrow margin. The case is still pending, and the court has not made a final decision on the request.
The dispute began before the federal lawsuit. Alaska’s election regulator had earlier blocked Daniel J. Sullivan from appearing on the ballot. Officials said his candidacy did not appear to be made in good faith and could confuse or mislead voters.
State courts later reversed that decision and allowed him to run. The courts found that there was not enough evidence to show that he intended to confuse voters. They also ruled that state law did not require candidates to prove that they were running in good faith.
Those rulings may create problems for the Justice Department. Legal experts say the US Constitution gives states the main role in managing elections. This could limit the federal government’s ability to control how Alaska runs its voting process.
Joshua Douglas, a law professor at the University of Kentucky, said the reports about Democratic efforts to recruit candidates were unlikely to help the department’s case. Claims about political strategy do not, by themselves, prove that a law was broken.
Alaska’s ballot identifies Daniel S. Sullivan as the incumbent senator. This may help voters tell him apart from the retired teacher with the same name. Still, the legal dispute has raised concerns about the possible effect of the case on the election process.
The outcome could have wider effects beyond Alaska. With control of the Senate at stake, a close result could influence the balance of power in Washington. The case may also test the limits of federal authority over state elections.
For now, the Justice Department must persuade the court that its request has a valid legal basis. State officials and candidates are waiting for the next steps as election day approaches. The court’s decision could affect how the results are handled if the race is close.
