Alaska Is Refusing to Let Washington Decide Its Senate Count

Alaska election officials are pushing back against a federal lawsuit that could keep the state from certifying its Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses. The suit, filed by the Trump administration’s Justice Department, asks a judge to delay certification if Democrat Mary Peltola wins narrowly and votes for another candidate named Dan Sullivan might have affected the result.

That is an unusual request. It is also a serious one.

The state’s response came in a court filing on Saturday. Alaska’s attorney general’s office asked U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason to dismiss the case with prejudice. It said state officials should be allowed to count ballots and certify the election without what it called unwarranted federal interference.

I read that and felt two things at once. The first was relief that state officials are defending a normal process. The second was concern, because the case arrives at a moment when trust in elections is already thin.

What the lawsuit asks

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit on October 22. It argues that the presence of two candidates named Dan Sullivan could confuse voters. One is the Republican incumbent, Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. The other is Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg who is also on the ballot.

The federal government’s request is conditional. It does not ask the court to declare Sullivan the winner outright. It asks that Alaska be blocked from certifying a Peltola victory if the margin is close enough that votes for the second Sullivan could have changed the outcome. The department later asked the court to separate ballots cast for the second Sullivan while it investigates whether voters were misled.

Alaska officials say that request runs into a basic problem: ballot secrecy. State attorneys called the demand to sort out individual ballots “not even possible” under Alaska’s system. They also argue that placing candidates on the ballot is governed by state law, not federal law.

That distinction matters. The Alaska Supreme Court has already decided that Daniel J. Sullivan may appear on the ballot. State officials say the federal law cited by the Justice Department does not control who may run and does not authorize the remedy the department wants.

The new reporting

The case gained attention after The New York Times reported that people associated with Mary Peltola’s Democratic campaign helped recruit Daniel J. Sullivan to run. The reporting described text messages and other communications involving campaign aides and political strategists. The stated aim, according to the Times, was to draw votes away from the incumbent Republican.

That reporting deserves to be taken seriously. Recruiting a candidate with nearly the same name as an opponent is not a harmless political trick. It is designed to create confusion, and voters should be able to expect better from the people asking for their support.

But the new reporting did not change Alaska officials’ position on the lawsuit. A spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law told CNN that the Times story confirmed concerns officials had about the second Sullivan’s candidacy. The spokesperson also said it had no impact on the current litigation.

Those are two separate questions. One is whether Democratic operatives acted improperly in recruiting a namesake candidate. The other is whether the federal government may step into a state election after the votes are cast and delay certification based on what it thinks voters meant to do.

The first question can be investigated. The second should make anyone pause.

Why certification matters

Certification sounds like paperwork. It is not. It is the point at which election officials confirm the count and make the result official.

If a court can hold that step open whenever a losing side argues that some voters were confused, the rule becomes unstable. Any close race could invite a new demand to examine ballots, delay the result, or look for a different outcome beneath the count.

That is my worry. Not because voter confusion is imaginary. It is not. But because the remedy being sought reaches past the ballot and into the private act of voting.

Alaska officials say they designed the ballot to reduce confusion. They also note that Daniel J. Sullivan’s place on the ballot was settled by the state’s highest court before the election. Those facts do not erase concerns about the recruitment effort. They do explain why the state sees the federal lawsuit as an intrusion rather than a safeguard.

What is still unknown

Several things remain unsettled.

Judge Gleason has not ruled on the state’s request to dismiss the case. The Justice Department’s theory has not been tested in a full hearing. It is not yet known whether the court will accept the federal government’s claim that it has standing to intervene, or whether it will agree that the requested remedy is legally available.

It is also not known what any state investigation into the recruitment effort will find. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has ordered one. The Times reporting describes involvement by people associated with Peltola’s campaign, but the full record, the legal analysis, and any consequences remain open questions.

What is clear is the stakes. Alaska’s Senate race could help decide control of the chamber. That makes the temptation to treat every procedural question as a partisan emergency stronger, not weaker.

The state’s answer, so far, is restrained. Count the ballots. Follow state law. Certify the result. If someone broke the law in getting a candidate onto the ballot, examine that separately.

That is not a partisan position. It is a procedural one, and procedures are what keep an election from becoming a negotiation.

I do not know how Judge Gleason will rule. I do know that the people counting Alaska’s votes are asking for the chance to finish their work. In a week when so much of the conversation is about who might win, that request deserves attention too.

Explore: Politics