The other Dan Sullivan case tests Alaska's election-law limits

The other Dan Sullivan case is no longer just a same-name campaign story. It is now a test of what Alaska's election office can do when the law lacks a neat box for the problem.

Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom opened an investigation this week into Daniel James Sullivan Jr. of Petersburg, who filed as a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate against Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. In a June 8 letter, Dahlstrom said the Division of Elections must determine whether Sullivan's declaration of candidacy was properly filed with a good-faith intention to serve and, if so, how his name should appear on the ballot to avoid voter confusion.

Dahlstrom's letter frames that determination as the central legal question.

Alaska does not appear to have a simple same-name spoiler candidate rule that answers this situation by itself like in other states. Dahlstrom's letter instead points to the sworn candidate filing. She wrote that Sullivan's declaration was submitted under penalty of perjury, and that if allegations of a coordinated voter-confusion effort were true, the filing was not genuine and not properly filed.

Dahlstrom asked Daniel J. Sullivan to answer seven questions in a sworn affidavit by noon Wednesday. They include whether he previously affiliated with the Republican Party, why he used Dan Sullivan for ballot access, who helped design his website and logo, and whether he had any interaction with Amber Lee, Amber Lee Strategies, another Senate candidate, or any Democratic Party agent.

She also asked whether, if the state finds his filing genuine, he would object to appearing as Sullivan, Daniel James Jr. (non-incumbent) or appearing without the Republican Party designation.

Those questions show the state's possible remedies. Dahlstrom can investigate. She can ask for sworn answers. She may try to change how Sullivan appears on the ballot, or keep him off if she concludes the filing was not genuine.

But that last step is the hard one.

Removing a federal candidate from the ballot over alleged motive would almost certainly invite a court fight. A state can administer ballot access, but it cannot casually add qualifications for U.S. Senate beyond the Constitution. The state's argument would likely have to be narrow: not that Sullivan is suspicious, but that his sworn filing was false or not legally valid.

The record gives Dahlstrom reason to ask.

Division of Elections records list Dan J. Sullivan as a pending Republican candidate from Petersburg. His campaign website was registered May 28.

FEC contribution records for Dan or Daniel Sullivan in Petersburg's 99833 ZIP code show repeated ActBlue donations over multiple cycles: $100 for Democrat Scott McAdams in 2010, $100 for Alyse Galvin in 2020, $100 for Mary Peltola in 2022, $30 for Peltola in 2024, and donations to the Alaska Democratic Party federal account and other Democratic candidates or committees.

Those are name-and-ZIP matches, not by themselves sworn proof of identity. They do not prove coordination with Peltola or Democrats.

But the records raise the question the state is now examining: whether this is a real Republican candidacy, or a ballot-access maneuver built around a familiar name.

The answer may come from Sullivan's affidavit. Or from a judge.