Judge dismisses Justice Department's Alaska Senate certification suit; department appeals to Ninth Circuit

A federal judge in Anchorage on Sunday, November 1, dismissed the Justice Department's lawsuit seeking to hold up certification of Alaska's U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses. About an hour later, the department filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling leaves Alaska's voting and counting rules unchanged for Tuesday's election. The appeal keeps the legal fight alive, but as of Monday morning no emergency motion had been reported on the appeals court docket.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason held that the federal government lacked standing because it had not shown how any order she could issue would fix the harm it alleged without breaking the secrecy of the ballot. "The absence of any explanation from the United States as to how its requested relief could redress its alleged injury while simultaneously maintaining the secrecy of the ballot is telling," she wrote in her 20-page order.

This is a follow-up to our earlier coverage. Our report on the department's request to set aside ballots describes the October 30 filings. Our report on the judge's expedited schedule explains the original complaint, and our report on the federal and state investigations covers the New York Times account behind them. The contest between Sullivan and Democrat Mary Peltola is tracked on our Alaska Senate race page.

What the judge decided

The case is United States v. State of Alaska (No. 3:26-cv-00376-SLG). The Justice Department sued on October 22 and amended its complaint on October 29. The amended complaint made two claims. The first relied on the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), whose stated purposes include protecting "the integrity of the electoral process." The second relied on the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which makes valid federal law override conflicting state action.

The department asked the court to bar the state "from certifying any result that may be impacted by voter confusion" while it investigated "whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for" the senator. In the complaint's own definition, a result could be affected if the senator lost but would have won had every vote for Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired Petersburg teacher, gone to him instead.

Three sets of defendants asked Gleason to throw the case out. The first was the state and its election officials. The second was Peltola's campaign committee, Alaskans for Mary, together with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). The third was the League of Women Voters of Alaska, Common Cause and two Alaska voters, represented by the ACLU. Gleason granted all three motions without holding oral argument.

Her ruling turned on one of the three elements of standing under Article III of the Constitution: redressability. A plaintiff must show that a court order is likely to fix its injury. Gleason relied on a 2020 Ninth Circuit case, Yazzie v. Hobbs, in which that court rejected a request to count some Navajo Nation mail ballots under a different deadline because officials could not tell which ballots came from those voters. "As in Yazzie, the relief requested here by the United States is 'infeasible,'" she wrote.

She gave three reasons. First, early ballots "have been commingled and cannot now be segregated or the identity of the person who cast each ballot ascertained." Second, the department offered "no workable plan" for separating Election Day ballots marked for Daniel J. Sullivan and investigating them "in a manner that would preserve voter secrecy." Third, a simple order to preserve ballots would add nothing, because state rules already require ballots in federal elections to be kept for 22 months.

On the department's broader requests, Gleason wrote that "requiring the segregation of ballots cast by voters for Daniel J. Sullivan so that these voters can be further investigated by law enforcement is not a remedy that this Court can or should order as it clearly violate Alaskans' right to a secret ballot." Alaska's constitution states that "secrecy of voting shall be preserved."

She also invoked the Purcell principle, the Supreme Court's guidance that federal courts should not change election rules close to an election. An order to set aside certain ballots for a later police inquiry, she wrote, "would likely result in voter 'confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.'" The department said it was not seeking to change the "time, place, or manner" of the election. Gleason found instead that its requests "certainly involve the time, place, and manner of Alaska's election, which are the responsibilities of the State, not the executive branch of the federal government."

What the ruling did not decide

The order does not address whether Daniel J. Sullivan was recruited to confuse voters, whether anyone broke a law, or whether voters have in fact been confused. Because the court found it had no jurisdiction, the dismissal is formally "without prejudice." Gleason nonetheless refused to let the department file another amended complaint. She said further amendment "would be futile" and would prejudice the state, which had already filed two motions to dismiss "within four days on the eve of a general election." She also denied the department's motions for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction as moot, along with a motion to intervene by an Alaska voter, David Reid Weber.

The court accepted three friend-of-the-court briefs, including one from election law scholar Richard Hasen and one from the NAACP. A final judgment was entered the same day.

The criminal side is separate. U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman said on October 30 that a federal criminal inquiry is under way, and Gov. Mike Dunleavy has ordered a state investigation, as NPR reported. No charges have been announced. Gleason's ruling does not affect either inquiry.

The appeal

The notice of appeal, signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, says the United States will appeal the dismissal order and the judgment. It was filed November 1. The Ninth Circuit opened the case as No. 26-7304, as Ballot Access News reported.

A notice of appeal starts the process but does not by itself ask for fast action. To get any order before Tuesday, the department would need to file an emergency motion. 567 Politics found no report of such a motion as of Monday morning. The Ninth Circuit has also turned down a similar request in another state. On October 30 it refused, for a second time, to order California to set aside about 20,000 mail ballots the department said could belong to noncitizens, as covered in our report on the California ballots case. Gleason quoted a concurring opinion in that case faulting the department for offering "no workable plan" for its remedy.

The department's position is also limited by a separate national order. On October 30, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson barred the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security from demanding that election officials segregate ballots, purge voters or halt ballot processing, as described in our report on that order. The department has appealed that ruling too, CNN reported.

How the parties responded

A Justice Department spokesperson said the court "dismissed the case on procedural grounds but did not dispute the argument of the United States that Daniel J. Sullivan (a/k/a Decoy Dan) entered the race as a frivolous candidate to confuse voters." The statement added: "Alaskan voters deserve a fair election, not to be misled in an attempt to rig outcomes," according to NBC News.

President Donald Trump said he had not yet heard about the ruling when he landed in Iowa on Sunday, but he called the case "one of the most meritful things" and a "very important lawsuit," CNN reported. In later remarks quoted by CNBC, he said: "This is voter fraud at the highest level. But the Democrat candidate who is involved in the scheme, Mary Peltola, should be removed from the ballot and prosecuted." On Truth Social he wrote that Daniel J. Sullivan "has DISAPPEARED! Nobody can find him, including Law Enforcement," NBC reported. 567 Politics has not verified the claim that law enforcement could not locate him. Background on the president is on our Donald Trump profile.

Sen. Sullivan, speaking on CNN's State of the Union before the ruling was released, said, "I'm going to accept the election results." He also accused his opponents of cheating: "Recognizing they couldn't run on their record, so they had to cheat," he said, according to CNBC. More on the senator is on our Dan Sullivan profile.$

Peltola's campaign said: "No sham investigation or baseless lawsuit from a weaponized Department of Justice is going to stop Alaskans from electing Mary on November 3rd." Peltola and the DSCC have denied involvement in Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy. DSCC Executive Director Devan Barber called the ruling "a victory for democracy." Sophia Lin Lakin, who directs the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said the suit "was lawless from the start," NPR reported.

The arguments on each side

The case for the department's position. In its opposition to dismissal, the department argued that the United States "suffers an injury in fact whenever federal law is violated." It said an election affected by voter confusion causes a "loss of election integrity and legitimacy," which it called a concrete harm under the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections. It relied on the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Bullock v. Carter, which recognized a state interest in protecting its elections "from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies." It argued that this interest "does not stop once the ballots are printed."

The department pointed to the June 15 letter in which Alaska's own elections director, Carol Beecher, concluded that Daniel J. Sullivan's filing was made "with a purpose to confuse or mislead." Beecher cited his request to appear as "Dan Sullivan," his switch to Republican registration two days before filing, a campaign website styled like the senator's, and his work with a consultant who has supported Democrats. State courts later overturned her decision. The department also leaned heavily on the New York Times report describing what it called a "Ballot Composition Project" involving Peltola aides and DSCC staff.

Conservative commentators add two points. The Alaska Story, a conservative Alaska news site, said it had heard from voters who marked the wrong Sullivan, noticed the mistake and asked for replacement ballots. 567 Politics could not verify those accounts, and spoiled-ballot reports would show mistakes that were caught, not ones that were counted. The same site argued that a Florida "ghost candidate" scheme from 2020, often cited as a comparison, ended in felony convictions for former Republican state Sen. Frank Artiles. In its view, that shows such schemes can be crimes.

The case against. The state, which is run by a Republican administration, argued that "no pattern of ballot markings will reveal any voter's reason for voting for Daniel J.," and that any inquiry would require breaking ballot secrecy. The judge agreed. Opponents also note that Alaska's courts ruled in June that Daniel J. Sullivan could run, and that the ballot lists the senator as "Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) Incumbent" and the other candidate as "Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr." with no party label. In the August primary, according to the order, Peltola received 49.54%, the senator 41.40%, Daniel J. Sullivan 2.47% and Gerald Heikes 1.05%.

On the legal theory, a FindLaw analysis by managing editor Joseph Fawbush argued that the NVRA "concerns voter registration" and "is not a general license for the president to supervise election outcomes." The same analysis drew a distinction relevant to the Florida comparison. Artiles was convicted over unlawful payments to the spoiler candidate, not over the candidate's presence on the ballot. Recruiting a spoiler and illegally financing one are different things.

Weighing the claims

Both sides make statements that go beyond the record. The department's description of the ruling as "procedural" is accurate in form, since the dismissal rests on jurisdiction. But its suggestion that the court "did not dispute" the frivolous-candidate claim treats silence as agreement. The court did not reach that question at all. Trump's statement that Peltola "should be removed from the ballot and prosecuted" assumes facts that no court or grand jury has found. On the other side, the campaign's description of a "weaponized" department and the ACLU's charge that the suit was "lawless from the start" are characterizations. The court ruled on standing, not on the department's motives.

The vote count, the appeal and the investigation

Polls close in Alaska on Tuesday. More than 86,700 Alaskans had voted early as of Sunday, according to state figures cited by NPR. If no candidate wins a majority of first choices, the last-place candidate is eliminated and those ballots move to each voter's next choice. Rankings for Daniel J. Sullivan matter only if he is eliminated in a round where the two leading candidates are close. Whether the dispute affects the outcome therefore depends on the margin.

On appeal, the department would have to persuade the Ninth Circuit that Gleason was wrong about redressability, and that an appeals court can order relief that the trial court found would breach ballot secrecy. Watch for an emergency motion in No. 26-7304, any developments in the criminal investigation, and state certification. The national picture is in our United States election guide.

This story covers court rulings and an investigation rather than either candidate's policy record or finances, so it does not include campaign-finance figures. This AI-assisted report was prepared on the morning of November 2, 2026, from the court filings and reporting linked above.

Differing perspectives

Does federal law let the Justice Department sue over the alleged decoy candidate in Alaska's Senate race?

Each position is summarized as its supporters make it, with equal weight and in alphabetical order. A summary is not an endorsement; the evidence for each is weighed in the story above.

• A scheme to mislead Alaska voters

  Who holds it: U.S. Department of Justice, plaintiff

  In its Oct. 30 omnibus opposition, the department cites New York Times reporting that the Peltola campaign and the DSCC recruited a second "Dan Sullivan" to mislead voters. It writes that the defendants and intervenors "argue the United States and this Court are powerless to do anything to protect Alaskans in these circumstances. They are wrong."

  In their words: United States' omnibus opposition to motions to dismiss, D. Alaska, Oct. 30, 2026 ↗

• Nothing to do with voter registration

  Who holds it: State of Alaska and Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, defendants

  In its Oct. 29 motion, the state argues the amended complaint "rests on the same meritless theory that the National Voter Registration Act—a voter registration law—governs this case, which has nothing to do with voter registration." It also asks the court to dismiss quickly so Alaska "can run its election" without "unjustified federal interference."

  In their words: Defendants' motion to dismiss first amended complaint, D. Alaska, Oct. 29, 2026 ↗