The Alaska federal court docket heated up overnight as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Alaskans for Mary, the principal campaign committee for Democrat Mary Peltola, filed a motion to intervene in the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the State of Alaska.
They explicitly argue they cannot rely on Alaska election officials to vigorously resist the DOJ's effort to protect the integrity of the U.S. Senate race amid the long-running "Decoy Dan" name-confusion scheme.
The case, United States of America v. State of Alaska et al., was filed by the DOJ on October 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.
It seeks to prevent certification of the November 3 general election results if incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan does not win and if reallocating votes cast for the similarly named Daniel J. Sullivan (under Alaska's ranked-choice system) would have changed the outcome.
The DOJ cites the risk of voter confusion distorting the will of Alaskans and points to the National Voter Registration Act's purpose of protecting electoral integrity. President Trump confirmed he directed the filing, telling reporters, "I'm the one that said do it."
As The Gateway Pundit has extensively reported, this stems from a Democrat-linked effort to place a same-name challenger on the ballot. In June, TGP detailed how a Democratic operative worked to register Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired Petersburg educator with a history of Democratic ties and a team of Democrats working for him, as a Republican primary challenger to cause chaos and siphon votes from the real Sen. Sullivan.
Alaska Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher initially excluded him, determining the candidacy was not filed in good faith but "with the purpose of confusing or misleading the electorate."
Sen. Sullivan called it out directly: the decoy was "obviously in it to rig it, not in it to win it." Courts later ordered his inclusion, and the Division distinguished the candidates on the ballot by labeling the incumbent "Incumbent" with Republican affiliation while listing the other without party designation.
TGP later covered Trump's direct involvement and the DOJ's move to guard against certification of results tainted by the scheme, noting Democrats' "dirty trick" with the decoy whose sole apparent purpose, per the complaint, was to benefit Peltola by reducing votes for Senator Sullivan.
In their October 23 motion, filed the day after the DOJ complaint, Alaskans for Mary and the DSCC, represented by lawyers from Elias Law Group (the firm tied to Marc Elias and a long record of Democratic election litigation) along with local Anchorage counsel, claim a "significantly protectable" interest in Peltola's potential victory and certification.
They argue the existing defendants (the State of Alaska, Beecher, and the election boards) may not adequately represent them.
Why? Because those same officials previously tried (and failed in court) to remove the decoy from the ballot, and because, as government entities, they might prioritize "public welfare" over the Democrats' partisan goal of ensuring a Peltola win is certified without any investigation into voter intent.
They even raise the possibility of settlement under pressure from the Trump administration and note Alaska's prior cooperation with DOJ on voter files.
The motion frames the DOJ action as an "unprecedented pre-emptive strike on democratic elections" ordered by the President that would only kick in if his preferred candidate loses, while downplaying the name-confusion risk and the Alaska Supreme Court's earlier role in forcing the decoy onto the ballot.
Peltola has publicly slammed the DOJ lawsuit as "corruption" and a "desperate attempt to cling to power" by Sullivan and "DC allies," insisting Alaskans can tell the two Sullivans apart.
Her campaign has denied orchestrating the decoy, though Republicans and the DOJ have pointed to coordination indicators and the primary results (Peltola at 49.5%, Sen. Sullivan at 41.4%, the other Sullivan around 2.5%). Other groups, including the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Common Cause, also moved to intervene.
This is classic election lawfare: Democrats engineered or exploited a same-name candidacy that Alaska officials flagged as non-good-faith, courts restored it, and now national Democratic committees and the Peltola campaign, armed with Elias-linked counsel, are rushing into court to ensure no post-election scrutiny of whether voters meant to support the incumbent.
Early voting is already underway, absentee ballots went out October 9, and the race is viewed as pivotal for Senate control. Alaska's ranked-choice system adds another layer, allowing voters to rank both Sullivans if confused.
Source link
