Opposition grows to Trump lawsuit seeking to aid Sen. Dan Sullivan’s re-election bid

One of the most prominent figures backing Sen. Dan Sullivan’s re-election campaign is speaking out against a Department of Justice lawsuit intended to aid him.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said on Friday that the DOJ should have never filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to pause certification of the ongoing U.S. Senate election if another candidate defeats Sullivan.

“Alaskans don’t need any help voting for their preferred candidates, and the State of Alaska has already handled this by clearly distinguishing the candidates on this year’s ballot,” Murkowski said in a post on social media. 

Sullivan is being challenged by Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, undeclared candidate Dan J. Sullivan and Republican candidate Gerald Heikes. Murkowski backed Peltola in a 2022 race for U.S. House but endorsed Sen. Sullivan for re-election this year.

Dan J. Sullivan is listed on the ballot as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.,” while Sen. Sullivan is listed as “Dan S. Sullivan (Registered Republican) Incumbent.”

In a complaint against the Alaska Division of Elections last week, the DOJ said that because Alaskans could be confused by the fact that there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot, it would be appropriate to pause certification of the election results if Peltola wins. 

Legal experts say the lawsuit — and the federal government’s authority on voting issues in Alaska — is dubious. 

“I believe that this lawsuit is abusive in its intentions and borders on frivolous in its arguments, and that it is destined for defeat in the courts should it reach the merits,” said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank.

President Donald Trump, who has endorsed Sen. Sullivan and visited Alaska to campaign for him earlier this month, said he ordered the DOJ to file the lawsuit.

On the day Murkowski criticized the lawsuit, Peltola’s campaign and the national Democratic Senate Campaign Committee asked to intervene on the side of the defense, alongside the Division of Elections.

Immediately afterward, they filed a motion to dismiss the case. 

“DOJ’s claim is lawless and utterly unsupported by precedent or statute,” wrote attorneys for the two groups, noting that the Alaska Supreme Court already ruled in June that Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy did not harm the election.

The Division of Elections, represented by the Alaska Department of Law, has yet to respond to the federal government’s claims, and Judge Sharon Gleason, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, has not yet ruled on any outstanding motions.

Attorneys for the Peltola campaign and the DSCC have asked Gleason to set an expedited schedule of arguments and decisions that could have the case resolved by the end of the week. 

Legal experts have said that unless Gleason dismisses the case outright, it is unlikely to be ripe for argument until after the election. If Sen. Sullivan wins outright or Peltola wins by a margin larger than the number of votes received by Dan J. Sullivan, the federal government’s arguments would be moot.

That’s because the DOJ has argued that some voters for Sen. Sullivan may accidentally vote for Dan J. Sullivan as well. 

If Peltola wins by more votes than Dan J. Sullivan receives, it would show that even if every Dan J. Sullivan voter was a confused backer of Sen. Sullivan, that confusion was not enough to change the result of the election. 

Two nonpartisan groups represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union also filed motions to intervene on Friday.

The League of Women Voters of Alaska, and Common Cause, a national group, said they are interested in having a free and fair election, and that the DOJ case “risks disenfranchising Alaska residents entirely.”

By email, Dan J. Sullivan said on Monday that “this experience has been beyond anything I could have ever imagined. To say that it has now become overwhelming and intimidating is an understatement. It is unending stress, at times paralyzing and I am looking forward to it being over.”

“I ran because I was unhappy with the status quo and wanted to be a voice for common sense, Alaska values and change.  With the litigation and threats, I was never really able to get up and running like I wanted, but I did the best I could under the circumstances,” he said. 

“As for the DOJ lawsuit against the state, it seems a gross misuse of the Justice Department for a situation that has already been litigated and resolved by the Alaska Supreme Court. I think the Division of Elections did a notable job of differentiating two candidates on the ballot with similar names and the primary showed there was little if any confusion. Alaskan voters are smart and I have faith in their ability to make an informed decision on their ballots.”