In a federal courtroom in Alaska, a judge has turned away the government's attempt to freeze the certification of a Senate race, finding that the Justice Department had neither the standing to sue nor a workable remedy to offer. The dispute grows from a strange accident of the ballot: a second man named Daniel J. Sullivan, sharing the incumbent senator's name and party label, whom the government believes was placed there to muddy the vote. Whether that suspicion reflects a real scheme or a political reflex is still unresolved, and it is being argued in the long shadow of an election that has a
Judge Dismisses DOJ Suit to Delay Alaska Senate Certification Over Duplicate 'Sullivan' Ballot Name
No workable plan to segregate ballots and preserve voter secrecy
Mark
Let's start simple. What did the judge actually decide?
Mimi
Judge Sharon Gleason dismissed the Justice Department's suit in a 20-page order on Sunday. She said the department lacked standing and hadn't shown a court order could fix its alleged injury.
Mark
So she never ruled on whether the second Sullivan was a decoy?
Luke
Careful there. The DOJ spokesperson says the judge didn't dispute its decoy argument. That's the department's characterization of the ruling, not something the order is reported to have said. Absence of a dispute isn't a finding.
Mimi
Fair. What the reporting does quote is her objection to the remedy: no workable plan to segregate those ballots or investigate them while keeping votes secret.
Mark
Why does ballot secrecy matter so much to the practical question?
Mimi
Because the DOJ wanted ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan set apart and examined. Gleason said it never explained how to do that without exposing how people voted.
Mark
And the allegations about Peltola's campaign?
Luke
Those come from New York Times reporting that the DOJ added to its suit. The campaign says it has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign. Sen. Sullivan says he doesn't believe Peltola didn't know, but that's his claim, not an established fact.
Mimi
And nobody has been charged, even though there's a criminal investigation and subpoenas to several Democratic officials.
Mark
So what's still unknown?
Luke
Whether the appeal succeeds, whether anyone is charged, and whether the second Sullivan actually pulled votes from the incumbent. None of that is answered yet.
Le Pouls
- A federal judge tossed the Justice Department's bid to halt certification, ruling the government lacked standing and had no workable plan for handling disputed ballots.
- A second Daniel J. Sullivan, sharing the incumbent senator's name and party label, has become a flashpoint of accusations that the candidacy was engineered to confuse voters.
- Peltola's campaign flatly denies involvement, while Sen. Sullivan insists the trickery will cost him votes and questions what the candidate's aides knew.
- The Justice Department has filed an appeal and runs a parallel criminal probe with subpoenas to Democratic officials, so the matter is far from over.
In a federal courtroom in Alaska, a judge has turned away the government's attempt to freeze the certification of a Senate race, finding that the Justice Department had neither the standing to sue nor a workable remedy to offer. The dispute grows from a strange accident of the ballot: a second man named Daniel J. Sullivan, sharing the incumbent senator's name and party label, whom the government believes was placed there to muddy the vote. Whether that suspicion reflects a real scheme or a political reflex is still unresolved, and it is being argued in the long shadow of an election that has already been cast. The case now moves toward appeal, carrying with it the old American question of how much trust a democracy can place in the names printed on its ballots.
On Sunday, a federal judge in Alaska threw out the Trump administration's lawsuit that sought to block certification of the state's Senate results. Judge Sharon Gleason concluded that the Justice Department lacked proper standing, and she found that the government had offered no practical plan for setting aside ballots cast for the contested candidate or for investigating them without compromising voter secrecy.
The controversy began with a ballot quirk. A teacher named Daniel J. Sullivan appeared on the ballot with the same name and party affiliation as the Republican incumbent, Sen. Dan Sullivan. The Justice Department argued he was entered to confuse voters and could draw votes from the incumbent, to the benefit of Democrat Mary Peltola. The department's amended filing leaned on recent New York Times reporting about people tied to Peltola's campaign allegedly seeking candidates to split the Republican vote. Peltola's campaign says it has no involvement, and Peltola has said she is not interested in tricking voters.
Sen. Sullivan has said he expects to lose votes to the confusion and doubts Peltola's claim that she was unaware of her aides' work. The Justice Department filed an appeal the same day, and a separate criminal investigation, with subpoenas to several Democratic officials, continues. No one has been charged. The judge has declined to halt certification, but the appeal and the probe could keep the question alive well beyond the midterms.
On Sunday, a federal judge in Alaska issued a 20-page order throwing out the Trump administration's lawsuit that sought to hold up certification of the state's Senate election results. U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason found that the Justice Department lacked proper legal standing to bring the case. The suit had been filed the previous week, and it asked her to block certification of this week's midterm results.
The dispute centers on a ballot oddity. A teacher named Daniel J. Sullivan is on Alaska's ballot with the same ballot name and party affiliation as the Republican incumbent, Sen. Dan Sullivan. The Justice Department alleged that the second Sullivan's candidacy was meant to confuse voters. It argued that his name potentially diverted votes from the incumbent and that the Democrat in the race, Mary Peltola, would benefit as a result.
Gleason was unpersuaded on practical grounds. She wrote that the Justice Department "provides no workable plan" for segregating ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan on Election Day. It also offered no plan for carrying out a court-ordered, unspecified "investigation" of those ballots in a way that would preserve voter secrecy. She added that the department failed to meet its burden of showing that its alleged injury could be redressed by a court order.
The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal the same day. A department spokesperson told CBS News that the judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds "but did not dispute the argument of the United States" that the second Sullivan, whom the spokesperson called "Decoy Dan," entered the race as a frivolous candidate to confuse voters. "Alaskan voters deserve a fair election, not to be misled in an attempt to rig outcomes," the spokesperson said.
The suit rested on the National Voter Registration Act. On Thursday it was amended to add recent reporting by The New York Times on alleged efforts by people associated with Peltola's campaign to find candidates who could draw votes away from the Republican senator. The amendment also added a second claim, arguing that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause requires the court to step in so the government can enforce the law and prevent a "conspiracy."
Peltola's campaign responded to the Times story by saying it "has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign." At a recent campaign event, Peltola said, "I am not interested in tricking voters."
Sen. Sullivan appeared Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" and said he believes the second Sullivan on the ballot will affect the outcome. "I'm sure I'm going to lose a lot of votes to that trickery," he said. He also doubted Peltola's claim that she did not know her top political aides were involved in recruiting Dan J. Sullivan to run. "There is no way this went on for a year that they weren't informing her," he said, adding, "She got caught lying, and she's still lying to the Alaskan people, the media, to all of us."
The civil suit is not the only federal action. The Justice Department is also conducting a criminal investigation into an alleged plot to put Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot, and it has issued subpoenas aimed at several Democratic officials believed to be tied to the effort to recruit him. Nobody in the race has been charged with a crime.
Watch the appeal and the criminal probe. Either could keep the question alive beyond the midterms, even though the judge has now declined to stop certification.
Citations marquantes
I'm sure I'm going to lose a lot of votes to that trickery.— Sen. Dan Sullivan, on CNN's State of the Union
I am not interested in tricking voters.— Mary Peltola, at a recent campaign event
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur CBS News ↗
Politics & Governance