Skip to content
OpenDocket

Can the U.S. block Alaska's Senate result over a look-alike candidate?

United States v. State of Alaska

Follow

At a glance

The Justice Department said a second Dan Sullivan on the ballot would confuse voters and sought to hold certification if Senator Sullivan lost. The court dismissed, citing ballot secrecy; the U.S. appealed.

  1. What happened · 6 steps
    1. Elections chief removes the second SullivanJun 15, 2026

      Alaska's elections director found Daniel J. Sullivan filed to confuse voters with the senator and pulled him from the ballot.

    2. Both Sullivans reach the November ballotAug 18, 2026

      State courts restored Daniel J. Sullivan to the ballot, and he and the senator both made the top four in the primary.

    3. United States sues over certificationOct 22, 2026

      It asked the court to bar certifying the result if Daniel J. Sullivan's votes would have given the senator the win.

    4. United States seeks an injunctionOct 30, 2026

      It asked that ballots ranking Daniel J. Sullivan be set apart, and for fast discovery into the Peltola campaign and DSCC.

    5. Court dismisses the caseNov 1, 2026

      It ruled the United States lacked standing: ballots are secret and mixed, so no court-ordered inquiry into intent is possible.

    6. United States appealsNov 1, 2026

      It asked the Ninth Circuit to review the dismissal; its opening brief is due December 14.

  2. Case dismissed; no limit on the count

    The dismissal stands while the appeal goes on, and no order limits how Alaska counts or certifies the November 3 Senate vote.

  3. Still open

    The United States appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit; its opening brief is due December 14, 2026, and the answering brief January 11, 2027. The dismissal is without prejudice, but the court refused to let the United States amend its complaint again in this case.

Where it stands

Appeal of the dismissal

The United States appealed; its opening brief is due December 14. · Nov 1, 2026

The district court dismissed the case on November 1 and entered final judgment. The United States appealed the same day, and Ninth Circuit briefing runs into January 2027.

Follow what's happening

  1. Lawsuit filed

    Oct 22, 2026

    The United States sued under federal voter registration law.

  2. Amended complaint

    Oct 29, 2026

    The United States added a Supremacy Clause claim.

  3. Motions to dismiss

    Oct 29, 2026

    Alaska and both intervenor groups moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

  4. Case dismissed

    Nov 1, 2026

    The court found it could not grant the relief sought and closed the case.

  5. Appeal of the dismissal

    Nov 1, 2026

    The United States appealed; its opening brief is due December 14.

The parties

United States

Plaintiff

The federal government, through the Justice Department

Wants

Hold certification if confusion may decide it

Key arguments

  • A second Sullivan was recruited to mislead voters

    Not reached. The court described this allegation but dismissed for lack of standing without deciding whether it is true.

  • The court can order ballots set apart for review

    Rejected. Final ruling. The court found ballots already cast are mixed and cannot be traced, and that singling out ballots for a law-enforcement inquiry would violate ballot secrecy.

  • Voter law tasks states with election integrity

    Not reached. The court dismissed for lack of standing without deciding this claim.

  • Certifying a skewed result would defeat federal law

    Not reached. The court dismissed for lack of standing without deciding this claim.

Represented by

U.S. Department of Justice; U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Alaska

State of Alaska and intervenors

Defendants and intervenor-defendants

Alaska election officials, Peltola campaign, voter groups

Wants

Dismissal before Election Day

Key arguments

  • The voter law covers registration, not ballots

    Not reached. The court dismissed for lack of standing without deciding what the voter law covers.

  • The ballot already sets the two Sullivans apart

    Not reached. The court described how each Sullivan is listed but did not rule on whether the ballot confuses voters.

  • Probing voters' intent would break ballot secrecy

    Accepted. Final ruling. The court held that no order could fix the claimed harm without violating ballot secrecy, so the United States lacked standing.

  • Too late: ballots are printed and voting has begun

    Accepted. Final ruling. The court found ballots already cast are mixed and cannot be traced, and that the rule against changing election rules on the eve of an election weighed against relief.

Represented by

Alaska Department of Law; Elias Law Group; Reeves Amodio LLC; ACLU of Alaska Foundation; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Friends of the court supporting neither side: NAACP and its Alaska Oregon Washington State Conference

Supporting defendants and intervenor-defendants: Thomas A. Lamb and Richard L. Hasen

Content snapshot as of .