A federal judge in Anchorage has said she intends to rule by 5 p.m. Alaska time on Wednesday, October 28, on who may join the Justice Department's lawsuit over Alaska's U.S. Senate race. The suit asks the court to block certification of the result if Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses and the outcome may have been affected by a second candidate named Sullivan on the ballot. Alaska's own election officials, led by Republicans, have asked the court to throw the case out.
What the Justice Department is asking for
The department filed its complaint on October 22 in United States v. State of Alaska (case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG). It names the state, Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher and the state's election review boards. The complaint argues that the candidacy of Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired educator from Petersburg, will confuse voters. It cites only one federal law, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The complaint asks the court to bar the state from certifying any result "that may be impacted by voter confusion." That bar would last until an investigation determines "whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan." It also asks for further steps "to determine what the result would have been" without him on the ballot. President Donald Trump has said he directed the department to file the suit, the Anchorage Daily News reported.
In the August primary, Democrat Mary Peltola received 49.5% of the vote, Sen. Sullivan 41.4% and Daniel J. Sullivan 2.5%, according to the complaint. All three advanced to the November 3 general election, which uses ranked choice voting.
The court schedule
U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason agreed on October 26 to speed up the case, according to her order on the motion to expedite. Two groups have asked to intervene as defendants. One is Peltola's campaign committee, Alaskans for Mary, together with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). The other includes the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Common Cause. The order says the court intends to rule on intervention by 5 p.m. on October 28. If intervention is granted, the department must respond to the groups' dismissal motions by 5 p.m. on October 29.
A later order set a separate track for the state's own motion to dismiss. The department must answer it by 3 p.m. Thursday, and the state may reply by noon Friday, the Anchorage Daily News reported.
The arguments
The Justice Department and the president. The complaint says Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy is "frivolous" and that certifying a result shaped by it would undermine confidence in the federal government. It cites a June 15 finding by Beecher that his declaration of candidacy was not filed to declare an actual good-faith candidacy. The Alaska Supreme Court later upheld a lower-court ruling that he was eligible. Attorney General Todd Blanche said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that the suit is "not saying, 'don't certify,'" CBS News reported. He said the goal was to "put guardrails in place" so ballots are kept in a way that allows a court to determine whether there was confusion. He acknowledged that "we don't know what's going to happen yet." Trump, referring to the more than 4,000 primary votes for Daniel J. Sullivan, said at an October rally, "That could be the difference."
The state of Alaska. The state's 20-page motion, filed on behalf of Beecher and the review boards, says the federal government lacks standing. It argues that federal law gives the United States "no legal authority over how candidates secure their place on the ballot in state elections." It says the department's reading of the NVRA would turn a voter registration law into "a limitless grant of authority for federal interference in state-run elections." It also argues the requested investigation would conflict with ballot secrecy. The motion notes that the ballot lists the challenger as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. with no party label, and that voters who are unsure may rank both. It adds that the department waited until early voting was under way to sue.
Peltola, the DSCC, other Republicans and the other candidates. Peltola's campaign called the department's move "a despicable political threat to overturn an election," CBS News reported. Not every Republican backs the suit. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska's other senator, wrote on X that the state "has already handled this by clearly distinguishing the candidates" and that the department "should never have filed this lawsuit," CBS News reported. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said he did not mind a review but did mind "filing a lawsuit before we even know if the facts" exist. Sen. Sullivan's campaign said it had "no prior knowledge of this lawsuit and no role in it." Daniel J. Sullivan has denied running to deceive voters. He says he believes the senator is doing a poor job.
Weighing the claims
The case turns on legal questions the court has not decided: whether the United States has standing, and whether the NVRA reaches ballot-access disputes. The department's requested remedy also raises a practical problem that the state highlights. A secret ballot does not record which Sullivan a voter "meant" to choose. The complaint's request for relief does not say how an investigation would establish that.
Some claims on each side go beyond the evidence. Trump has called ranked choice voting "very fraudulent," the Anchorage Daily News reported, without offering evidence for that claim. The Peltola campaign's phrase "threat to overturn an election" is a claim about intent. The filing asks the court to delay certification and to determine what the result "would have been." Whether that could change a winner depends on relief the complaint leaves to the court. Trump's point that 4,000 votes "could be the difference" is a hypothesis. It assumes those voters intended to choose the senator, which no evidence yet shows.
Background on the incumbent is on our Dan Sullivan profile, and the national picture is in the United States election guide.
This AI-assisted report was prepared on October 28, 2026, from the court filings and reporting linked above. It was written before the court's expected ruling on intervention.
Photo and reporting note
File image for context, not a photograph of the events reported here. Photo: James Brooks, original file, CC BY 2.0. Cropped for publication.
