Alaska Supreme Court rules Dan J. Sullivan is a legitimate US Senate candidate

High court declares retired Petersburg teacher with same name as incumbent senator ‘shall be listed as a candidate within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law’

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 story has been updated with the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision.

The Alaska Supreme Court on Monday ruled Dan J. Sullivan will remain a candidate in the U.S. Senate race for the seat held by Dan S. Sullivan, rejecting the state’s disqualification of the challenger on the claim he was trying to confuse voters.

But the ruling gives the Alaska Division of Elections leeway to determine how the candidates’ names will appear on the ballot, which could potentially raise further disputes. An attorney for the state, for instance, argued Monday in favor of a plan to list Dan J. Sullivan as a nonpartisan rather than Republican candidate, even though he registered as a Republican and was previously acknowledged as such by elections officials.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was issued three hours after the justices heard arguments in the appeal by the Alaska Division of Elections, following a Superior Court ruling on Friday that Dan J. Sullivan be placed back on the ballot.

"This matter is remanded for the Division of Elections to determine…how appellee Sullivan shall be listed as a candidate within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law," the Supreme Court’s order states. "A full opinion will be issued at a later date."

Dan J. Sullivan told the Alaska Beacon on Monday he is relieved the dispute is over and he would agree to be listed as “Dan J. Sullivan” on the ballot as he begins his campaign in earnest.

"I was frustrated, I felt it’s time for a change, and so I wanted to jump into the race and make my feelings and my thoughts known," he told the Beacon. "So there’s not a whole lot more to it than that. They tried to make it more than that, and you know, that’s their prerogative.”

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.

Similar questions from a different perspective were asked of Jeffrey Robinson, the attorney representing Dan J. Sullivan.

"Let's say that we had a candidate who just came right out and said, ‘Yep, I'm doing this to try to confuse everyone and make people vote for me instead of the person they intend to vote for. Yep, that's what I'm doing,’" said Justice Jennifer Henderson. "Does the state have no ability to remove that candidate from the ballot?"

Robinson said there are no such regulations currently to allow such a removal, although it’s possible they could be enacted by lawmakers in the future — possibly by implementing signature-gathering or other requirements. However, he said the U.S. Constitution sets definitive qualifications such as age and residency, rather than subjective ones such as the motivations of a candidate.

"A rule that says you may not run if we think your motive is to confuse voters is, number one, subjective because it requires a finding of intent," he said. "It's content and viewpoint adjacent, because it turns on what a candidate is for,…and most problematically it's discretionary in a way that can be used to advantage incumbents."

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."

One of the five justices, Dario Borghesan, recused himself from the case because he’s related to one of Dan J. Sullivan’s attorneys.

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.

Two-term incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan is facing former Democratic U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola as his main challenger in a race national pundits have stated is likely to be competitive — and possibly decisive in determining which political party has a majority in the chamber during the final two years of President Donald Trump’s second term. Amicus briefs on behalf of the State of Alaska were filed by 14 Republican-led states.

A spokesperson for Sen. Dan S. Sullivan issued a statement expressing disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision, falsely claiming Dan J. Sullivan’s lawyers "made clear in their arguments…the only reason he is running is to deceive voters and manipulate Alaska’s election system." Robinson, along with Dan J. Sullivan and others supporting his candidacy, have stated he is legitimately seeking the office and taken steps — including public statements and photos on his website — to distinguish himself from the incumbent.

The statement by Sen. Sullivan’s campaign also declares "we are encouraged by the fact that the Director of the Division of Elections will be able to use her expertise to differentiate between the Petersburg fraud and the incumbent — Senator Dan Sullivan — to the benefit of Alaska voters."

The senator has echoed complaints filed by Republican party entities that Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy is a sham occurring at the behest of Peltola and Democratic party officials, who have denied those allegations.

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