.png)
State tells court Dan J. Sullivan isn’t a genuine US Senate candidate; he says motives can’t legally disqualify him
- Mark Sabbatini
- Jun 25
- 5 min read
Updated: Jun 25
Unprecedented election dispute involving Petersburg resident with same name as Republican incumbent heard Thursday by Anchorage judge, who plans to issue decision Friday
By Mark Sabbatini
Juneau Independent
Even if Dan. J Sullivan is a “sham candidate” — and he denies he is — the state doesn’t have the right to ban him from seeking the U.S. Senate seat held by his namesake, his attorney argued during a court hearing Thursday.
An attorney for the Alaska Division of Elections, in response, argued the Petersburg resident isn’t legitimately attempting to challenge Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, but trying to confuse voters in what’s expected to be a close contest against the Democratic candidate. Furthermore, the attorney argued, it’s not the state’s responsibility to come up with a way to clarify the differences between same-name candidates on a ballot.
What the parties call an unprecedented dispute in Alaska’s elections was heard in an Anchorage courtroom Thursday by Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews, who said he plans to issue a decision Friday, but it may not occur by the end of the court system’s normal operating hours at 4:30 p.m.
"You all should go get some sleep tonight because I suspect you have more work to do one way or the other this weekend," he told the attorneys at the end of the hearing.
Attorneys for both sides have stated they expect the decision to be appealed over the weekend to the Alaska Supreme Court, with elections officials saying a final ruling is needed by noon Tuesday so ballots can be printed.
Dan J. Sullivan, a retired Petersburg teacher, is challenging the decertification of his candidacy by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, who stated June 15 it was "filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead" voters into mistaking him for incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.
Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney representing Dan J. Sullivan, said during Thursday’s hearing state law limits decertifications to candidates that don’t meet the legal requirements to be a candidate. For the U.S. Senate those are being 30 years of age, a U.S. citizen for nine years and an inhabitant of the state represented at the time of the election.
"It requires nothing like good faith purpose of genuinely pursuing election that Director Beecher concluded Mr. Sullivan lacks," Robinson said.
Complaints filed by two Republican Party organizations, as well as Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, have accused Dan J. Sullivan of being a "sham candidate" backed by Democratic candidate Mary Peltola and supporters of hers. Among the reasons cited are the Petersburg resident filing as a Republican candidate when he has never been a member of that party, a campaign website with similar colors and some design elements as the incumbent, and hiring a political consultant who has been involved in Democratic campaigns in Alaska.
Peltola and the Alaska Democratic Party have denied any involvement in Dan J. Sullivan’s campaign.
Dan J. Sullivan, in his court appeal and other written responses to the allegations, states he was an Alaskan Independence Party member for many years until it officially ceased to exist at the beginning of this year, and the Republican Party is the closest alternative aligning with his beliefs. He also noted his website’s colors and features are largely based on Alaska’s state flag — which is highly common for candidates — and his picture and middle initial should make it clear who people are voting for.
"The Alaska Supreme Court has previously acknowledged that Alaska voters are savvy; they're well equipped to understand the dynamics of an open primary and to choose a qualified candidate," Robinson said, referring to a prior election-related case. Furthermore, the court noted "parties can warn voters about Trojan Horse candidates — those who might run under a party's banner, but do not share the party's values. The court further noted that Alaska voters are not easily fooled and that the Alaska Supreme Court has confidence in Alaskan voters' common sense."
Chris Murray, an attorney representing the Division of Elections, said he agrees with Robinson that the case is about fundamental rights, but from the state’s perspective "the purpose of a ballot under Alaska law, and really I think every other state's law, is to fairly convey voter intent."
Murray said a candidate declaration form is where a person asserts they are legitimately seeking a political office and Beecher’s decertification was based on evidence suggesting Dan. J. Sullivan wasn’t truthful in that declaration.
"What do genuine political candidates do?" Murray asked rhetorically. "They try to distinguish themselves. They try to find any way to draw contrasts between themselves and the people that they are challenging. Why? Because they want to get enough votes to beat that person."
Murray also expressed concern about the impact on future elections if Dan J. Sullivan is allowed on this year’s ballot.
"If this decision is not affirmed, and it turns out that the court holds that Alaska is just simply powerless and the (elections) division is powerless to stop this sort of behavior, we're going to be inviting more of this," Murray said.
Matthews, among other questions to the attorneys about their arguments, asked Murray about the state’s ability to avoid ballot confusion.
"Isn't there a way to effectively distinguish the two Dan Sullivans that we do have here?" the judge asked.
Murray said that while that ability exists, "the question is (if) the division is obligated to do that."
"Where confusion is the goal, your honor, we don't believe the division is under an obligation to try and mitigate it or accommodate it," he told the judge.
Furthermore, Murray said, “we don’t think a middle initial is sufficient" to make it clear to voters which Dan Sullivan is which.
The large amount of public attention to the dispute has resulted in the court system placing the case files on its Most Requested Case Files webpage. Thursday's hearing was also livestreamed, with more than 300 watching, although it suffered from occasional glitches and disconnects that prompted numerous social media complaints from observers.
A large number of people besides the participants also dialed into the remote hearing by phone, including Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom (who oversees the elections division) and former state Attorney General Stephen Cox (now working in a newly created "counsel to the governor" position after the Legislature rejected his nomination).
Matthews praised the attorneys for both sides in the case for working cooperatively to ensure the matter is resolved quickly.
"It is a delight to have really good lawyers in the courtroom, and you all have shown what excellent lawyering can be, and so your professionalism and working together to get this done quickly is certainly appreciated by the court, and I think it's an example for the public of how lawyers ought to act despite our disagreements," he said.
• Contact Mark Sabbatini at editor@juneauindependent.com or (907) 957-2306.
