Two candidates with similar names have become the focus of a federal lawsuit filed before Alaska’s Senate election.
The US Justice Department sued Alaska on October 22, alleging that Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy was intended to confuse supporters of incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan.
The complaint seeks conditional relief against certification if the incumbent loses in circumstances where votes for the other Sullivan could have affected the outcome. The alleged improper purpose has not been established by a court. DOJ: October 22 complaint (PDF).
A conditional request, not a court finding
The challenged candidate disputes an intention to mislead voters. Alaska’s courts had previously permitted his candidacy, and legal specialists quoted in contemporaneous reporting question the federal claim’s foundation. Reuters: lawsuit and candidate response, via AOL.
The requested remedy raises questions beyond whether similar names can cause confusion.
The court must first consider the legal authority supporting the claim and whether the requested intervention is available. The complaint’s reliance on the National Voter Registration Act does not itself establish that the statute authorizes the relief sought.
Authority, evidence and the secret ballot
There is also an evidentiary problem: how would an inquiry distinguish a voter’s deliberate selection from a mistaken one after a secret ballot?
That question should be separated from the allegation about the candidate’s intentions. Even proof concerning a candidacy would not automatically establish what individual voters intended.
For election-law practitioners, the sequence is important. Ballot eligibility, vote counting, certification and a post-election challenge involve related but distinct decisions.
Watch the procedural decisions
For Canadian readers, the dispute concerns US federal and Alaska law. It does not determine the grounds for challenging a Canadian election.
On October 23, political organizations, voters and civic groups filed motions seeking to intervene as defendants. The state’s response and any judicial decision addressing jurisdiction, the legal claim or interim relief remain important developments.
The government has requested intervention. It still must establish both its legal authority and the factual basis for the remedy.
Related coverage: Alberta Referendum Results Reject a Path Toward Separation: What Changes Legally?.
Sources: DOJ: October 22 complaint (PDF) · Reuters: lawsuit and candidate response, via AOL · Democracy Docket: filings and intervention motions .