Two Dan Sullivans, One Ballot, and a Criminal Investigation

There are two men named Dan Sullivan on Alaska’s U.S. Senate ballot. One is the Republican incumbent. The other is a retired teacher with no party label. Federal authorities are now investigating the second man’s candidacy, and the Justice Department wants ballots that rank him set aside for possible review.

That is an unusual sentence to write. It is also the situation facing Alaska voters in a Senate race that could matter far beyond the state.

The incumbent is Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. The other candidate is Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher from Petersburg. Their names are close enough to cause concern, but the ballot distinguishes them. The senator is listed as “Dan S. Sullivan,” a registered Republican and incumbent. The other is listed as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.,” with no party affiliation.

The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into the second Sullivan’s Senate run. U.S. Attorney Michael J. Heyman said the inquiry had been underway for months and was accelerated after recent reporting about how the candidate entered the race. Federal officials have also brought in additional law enforcement resources.

The department has not said publicly that anyone has been charged. An investigation is not a finding of guilt. That distinction matters, especially when the subject is an election.

What the government wants

In a separate civil case, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to order Alaska officials to preserve and segregate all ballots that rank Daniel J. Sullivan. The government says it wants to investigate whether those rankings came from voter confusion.

The request is unusual. It asks the court to act before the full result is known. The Justice Department has also asked that Alaska not certify a Senate result if Sen. Sullivan loses narrowly and the votes for the other Sullivan could have changed the outcome.

Alaska’s Republican-led government opposes that request. State attorneys say separating ballots would be impossible without violating ballot secrecy, because ballots are mixed together after they are cast. They also argue the ballot already gives voters enough information to tell the two candidates apart.

I understand why the federal request raises alarm. A ballot is supposed to be private. Once votes are counted, officials should not be able to pull individual voters’ choices apart without a very clear legal basis and a very careful process.

But I also understand the concern behind it. If voters were deliberately misled, that is not a small administrative problem. It would strike at the basic promise that an election reflects what people intended to do.

The dispute over the candidacy

The legal fight began before Election Day. Reporting alleged that allies of Democrat Mary Peltola helped recruit Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. to run, hoping his presence could draw support away from the Republican senator. Peltola has denied knowing about the effort.

That allegation is serious. It is also not, by itself, proof of a crime. Alaska’s Supreme Court ruled that both Sullivans could appear on the ballot because there was no legal mechanism to remove a candidate who met the qualifications to run.

The state did change the ballot to make the candidates easier to distinguish. It listed the incumbent’s party and status. It listed the other Sullivan without a party label. Alaska also uses ranked-choice voting, which lets voters rank more than one candidate.

Those safeguards do not erase every possible confusion. Names carry weight. Some voters move quickly. Some may see “Sullivan” and stop reading. But the state’s position is that voters were given real information, not a blank choice between two identical names.

Why this matters beyond Alaska

A Senate seat can affect judicial confirmations, federal spending, and the balance of power in Washington. That is why both parties are watching Alaska so closely.

Yet the people with the most immediate stake are Alaska voters. They are being asked to trust that their ballots will be counted as cast. They are also being asked to trust that no one can use an investigation to delay or reshape a result without strong evidence.

Those two trusts can pull against each other. Election officials must protect the secrecy and integrity of every ballot. Investigators must be able to pursue credible allegations of wrongdoing. The hard part is doing both without treating voters as suspects.

The Justice Department says its request is precautionary. It wants the ballots preserved in case an investigation becomes necessary. Alaska says the request is impractical and threatens privacy. A judge will have to decide whether the government has shown a legal basis for the order.

What remains unknown

Several things remain unsettled. We do not know whether the criminal investigation will produce charges. We do not know whether any voter was actually confused. We do not know whether the second Sullivan’s vote total will be large enough to affect the Senate result. And we do not know whether a court will allow ballots to be segregated at all.

That uncertainty is uncomfortable. It should be. Elections work best when the rules are clear before votes are cast, not when officials are arguing over ballots after the fact.

Still, uncertainty is not the same as corruption. The right response is patience with the legal process and insistence on transparency where the law allows it. Voters deserve to know what was found, what was not found, and why any action affecting their ballots was taken.

Alaska’s election will be decided by its voters. Whatever happens next, the obligation is simple to state and hard to carry out: count the votes accurately, protect the voters’ privacy, investigate real wrongdoing, and do not let suspicion replace evidence.

More on: Politics