Skepticism about disqualifying Dan J. Sullivan as US Senate candidate expressed by Alaska Supreme Court justices

State tells high court during hearing Monday it wants to list retired Petersburg teacher as nonpartisan rather than Republican if his candidacy is affirmed

The Alaska Supreme Court hears arguments Monday, June 29, 2026, in an appeal about the U.S. Senate candidacy of Dan J. Sullivan. (Screenshot from Gavel Alaska livestream)

By Mark Sabbatini

Juneau Independent

This is a developing story.

The state’s legal rationale for decertifying Dan J. Sullivan as a U.S. Senate candidate was questioned by multiple Alaska Supreme Court justices during a hearing Monday, a day before they are being asked to issue a final ruling on the dispute.

Justices also challenged a newly declared plan by the state to list Sullivan as a nonpartisan rather than Republican candidate if he is on the ballot, even though he registered as a Republican and was previously acknowledged as such by the Alaska Division of Elections.

The candidacy of Dan J. Sullivan, a retired Petersburg teacher, was restored on Friday by a state Superior Court judge who asserted the state’s action was “based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good-faith’ criteria." The elections division decertified Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy on June 15, stating it was "filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead" voters into mistaking him for incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.

The state Supreme Court agreed to expedite the case because elections officials say a decision is needed by noon Tuesday so ballots can be printed as scheduled this week. 

"We will do our best to get out at least a short order as quickly as this multi-judge court can move," Chief Justice Susan Carney said at the end of the hour-long hearing. "As you might expect, it will take a bit longer to get an opinion that explains our reasoning."

Many of the questions from the justices focused on whether the state has the authority to judge a candidate’s intent and, if so, whether lesser measures to prevent voter confusion are more appropriate than removing the candidate altogether from the ballot.

"The remedy that the division has chosen is the most extreme possible remedy," Carney asked the state’s attorney. "Why not use one of the lesser ones?"

Chris Murray, the attorney representing the Division of Elections, said the case is unprecedented in that it involves candidates with essentially identical names seeking the same office under the same political party affiliation. He said Dan J. Sullivan’s actions — such as not using his full name of Daniel — show he is trying to confuse voters rather than make a distinct effort to make it clear he is not the incumbent senator.

Murray, reiterating arguments from last week’s court hearing, also noted that while the elections division can take steps to distinguish candidates on the ballot, it is not required to do so and felt it was inappropriate in this instance since they did not believe Dan J. Sullivan was legitimately seeking to be elected.

Justice Aimee Oravec, referring to a filing by Dan J. Sullivan’s attorney, noted "a lot of times people run for office for different reasons: to highlight an issue, to see what the process is like and maybe start garnering support over time."

"These are not necessarily candidates that are seeking office, so much as attention for other reasons that are not necessarily bad faith and there's no limiting principle," she said. "There's no statute that kind of guides the division as to what they should be considering."

Murray, in response, said this is a different situation seeking to disrupt the integrity of the election process.

"Here the declaration of candidacy was executed for a specific purpose, the purpose being to frustrate the clarity of the ballot," he said.

However, some justices echoed last week’s finding by Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews that state law restricts the discretion of elections officials to whether a candidate meets the constitutional requirements of the office sought — and motives aren’t included in those qualifications. Some of that discussion shifted to methods the state might be permitted to use to distinguish candidates with similar names.

"The division's proposal not to list him as Republican after certifying his declaration of candidacy as a Republican would appear to be a little outside its discretion, wouldn't it?" Carney asked Murray.

Murray, responding to a series of similar questions from justices, said "we would ask that the court, if it decides that Mr. Sullivan has to go on the ballot, that it remand and let the division make the determination about how he goes on the ballot."

Dan J. Sullivan, in previous statements and court filings, has denied the intent of his candidacy is to confuse voters. He stated he was a longtime member of the Alaskan Independence Party until it was officially dissolved by the state at the beginning of this year, and he registered as a Republican when he ran for U.S. Senate because it’s the existing party closest to his political beliefs.

• Contact Mark Sabbatini at editor@juneauindependent.com or (907) 957-2306.