A Unique Challenge in Alaska: Two Dan Sullivans Compete for Senate Seat
In an unexpected twist in Alaska politics, a man sharing both the name and Republican Party affiliation of U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is now cleared to compete against him in the upcoming primary. This decision follows a recent ruling by Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews.
The judge’s decision overturns an earlier action by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, who had disqualified Dan J. Sullivan from appearing on the primary ballot. This ruling, however, is still open to appeal by the state to the Alaska Supreme Court. With the primary election ballots set to be printed soon, a final decision is crucial by Tuesday.
Judge Matthews found that the disqualification of Dan J. Sullivan was not supported by constitutional guidelines, state law, or even the Division’s own regulations. The challenge appears to stem from a novel and previously unstated “good faith” criterion applied by the Division.
Jeffrey Robertson, the attorney representing Dan J. Sullivan, indicated an anticipation of an appeal but refrained from further comments until the supreme court’s involvement. The state’s attorneys have yet to provide a response to the ruling.
The presence of another Dan Sullivan in the race has heightened the stakes for the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The race is considered one of the pivotal Senate contests this year, with Democrats aiming to gain control of the Senate by flipping such seats.
The incumbent and his allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have criticized the challenger’s candidacy, suggesting voter confusion could ensue. Alaska’s election system allows the top four candidates from the primary to advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.
Sen. Sullivan has accused his namesake of collaborating with Democrats and Mary Peltola’s campaign to undermine his reelection chances. Both Peltola’s camp and the challenger have denied such allegations. Notably, Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the most prominent candidates in the race, being the only ones to have reported campaign fundraising.
Director Beecher’s rationale for disqualification was based on perceived intentions to confuse voters, pointing out that Dan J. Sullivan had altered his voter registration and party affiliation. Additional concerns arose from resemblances between his campaign and the senator’s, as well as his association with a consultant linked to Democratic clients.
State attorneys argued against suggestions to design ballots to mitigate confusion, with attorney Rachel Witty asserting that constitutional obligations do not extend to accommodating “sham candidates.” The challenger’s legal team countered, emphasizing that the Constitution only specifies age, citizenship, and residency as Senate qualifications.
Dan J. Sullivan has expressed that sharing a name with the senator provides a platform for his voice, insisting that his candidacy is rooted in genuine political aspirations and frustrations with the incumbent’s performance. Initially, the state listed him as Dan J. Sullivan, distinguishing him from Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, the incumbent.
