Blanche’s DOJ seeks to hold Alaska certification pending a confusion inquiry

Attorney General Todd Blanche’s Justice Department filed suit on October 22 asking a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying a Senate result that “may be impacted by voter confusion” while an investigation proceeds. That asks Alaska’s voters and election officials to bear the cost of unresolved suspicion before investigators establish whether confusion changed the outcome. Protecting ballots for review is defensible; making certification contingent on resolving possible confusion is a substantially broader exercise of power.

Blanche publicly described something narrower. According to Al Jazeera, he said the lawsuit was not intended to determine the senator or overturn the state’s action, but to preserve ballots for further investigation. The Washington Examiner quoted his explanation of the certification threshold: “if a court ultimately determines that it was decided because of confusion and not the will of the voters,” the state should not certify. That describes a finding that confusion decided the election, not merely a possibility requiring investigation.

The complaint asks the court to declare certification of any result that may be affected by confusion unlawful. It also seeks to bar certification pending an investigation into whether votes for Daniel J. Sullivan were intended for incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan, along with further procedures or relief the court considers necessary. If granted, that restraint would operate while the central factual question remained unresolved. Preserving evidence keeps an inquiry possible; withholding certification makes the state’s completion of the election depend on that inquiry. Blanche’s explanation does not account for that difference.

DOJ’s stated purpose is election integrity, and its allegations deserve consideration. The complaint alleges that Daniel J. Sullivan entered the race to mislead the incumbent’s supporters and benefit Democrat Mary Peltola. It cites state elections director Carol Beecher’s finding that his candidacy was intended to confuse voters. It also describes his switch to the incumbent’s party shortly before filing under a shortened name that, according to the complaint, he had not previously used. Those are specific grounds for concern, not simply an objection to two people sharing a surname. The complaint predicts a “substantial likelihood” that his inclusion will confuse the incumbent’s supporters and distort Alaskans’ will. Its preventive case for a certification hold is to guard against that predicted distortion while investigators determine whether votes went to the wrong Sullivan. That connects the alleged deception to the requested restraint, but remains a prediction of effects, not an established effect on an election result.

The second Sullivan disputes that account. Al Jazeera reports that he denied being a spoiler and denied any conversations with Peltola’s campaign about his candidacy. In a letter before the primaries, he said he ran because the incumbent had “routinely failed the people of Alaska” and because he had a right to seek office. His explanation directly contests DOJ’s claim that his candidacy exists solely to divert votes.

Alaska had also taken decisions that matter to the requested remedy. According to Al Jazeera, its Supreme Court allowed both Sullivans to compete. The November ballot will identify Dan S. Sullivan as the incumbent and a registered Republican, while adding “Jr” to Dan J. Sullivan’s name and leaving his party affiliation blank. Those distinctions cannot guarantee that nobody will be confused. But they weaken the case for treating the second candidate’s presence itself as sufficient reason to place certification under an investigative hold.

President Donald Trump publicly claimed responsibility for initiating the suit: “I’m the one that said ‘do it,’” the Washington Examiner reported. Blanche declined to discuss private communications with him. The alleged party and name changes warrant investigation, but Alaska’s incumbent designation, added suffix and contrasting party labels directly address the risk that voters will mistake one Sullivan for the other. DOJ’s prediction of confusion must be weighed against those concrete safeguards, not just the alleged design of the candidacy. On that balance, preserving ballots for examination is defensible; making completion of Alaska’s election depend on an investigation is a disproportionate response.