President Donald Trump listens as Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, speaks at a campaign rally at the Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Center, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, in Wasilla, Alaska (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
The U.S. Department of Justice and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) traded harsh barbs in an Alaska lawsuit alleging “voter confusion” in the U.S. Senate race between Democrat Mary Peltola and two men with strikingly similar names.
Last week, the DOJ sought to enjoin the forthcoming election certification, arguing that if Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan narrowly loses to Peltola, that may be because Daniel J. Sullivan “decided to run for Senator in 2026 as a Republican with the intention of misleading supporters of Senator Sullivan into voting for him.”
Over the weekend, Peltola’s principal campaign committee and the DSCC moved to intervene. The Democrats implored the district court to dismiss the lawsuit as soon as “this week,” arguing the case cannot “hang like the Sword of Damocles over the ongoing” midterms.
On Tuesday, the government defended its lawsuit and formally opposed the motion to intervene, calling it duplicative of the state’s interest. But that position did not last long.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
What changed was a story by The New York Times alleging Daniel J. Sullivan was recruited by Democrats to play the role of spoiler and help Peltola’s campaign achieve electoral victory.
In a motion, the Trump administration backtracked on the Democratic intervention.
“Given a change in circumstances—the New York Times reporting that Proposed Intervenor Alaskans For Mary and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee orchestrated a sprawling conspiracy to recruit and prop up a sham candidate for the purpose of deceiving Alaskan voters—the United States withdraws its opposition to the Motion to Intervene,” the DOJ’s three-page notice of withdrawal reads.
While the story may be unwelcome to Democrats, the DOJ’s filing means all parties are now on the same page about who can litigate.
Earlier on Wednesday, the Democratic Party noted that the defendants “made clear that they do not oppose” the intervention in an earlier filing stating that it is “well-established that candidates and their campaigns have sufficient interest in election litigation to support intervention.”
“Defendants effectively acknowledge that they cannot adequately represent these intervenors’ unique interests,” the 11-page response motion reads. “[T]he partisan and electoral interests of Alaskans for Mary and DSCC in winning the election are fundamentally different in kind from State Defendants’ generalized interests in avoiding federal interference with the State’s management of Alaska’s election.”
The DSCC filing goes on to highlight some differences between what the Democrats and Alaska officials are arguing in the case.
“Defendants do not significantly develop why the Purcell doctrine bars DOJ’s claim,” the response motion goes on, referring to the notion that courts should be cautious and hesitant to make substantial changes to state election rules in the time period just before an election.
“Defendants also do not explicitly argue that the Complaint fails to plausibly allege a risk of voter confusion,” the motion continues. “Moreover, unlike Alaskans for Mary and DSCC, State Defendants suggest DOJ’s claim may be ‘not yet ripe,’ with the implication that it may become ripe after the election. That argument is directly at odds with Alaskans for Mary and DSCC’s interest in a final resolution of this case now, on the merits.”
The Trump administration, for its part, argues the Democratic groups are effectively working toward voter confusion.
“Alaskans For Mary and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are adamant that they have ‘especially stark interests’ in ensuring that Mr. Sullivan’s decoy candidacy continues without any steps to prevent voter confusion,” the DOJ motion reads. “The campaign thus all but concedes that the effect of this farce, consistent with its obvious intent, is to help Peltola electorally. Confusing voters is not a cognizable, protectable interest.”
The Democrats insist the DOJ’s take on the case is incorrect.
“This case is not about whether Daniel J. Sullivan is qualified to appear on the ballot—the Alaska Supreme Court definitively resolved that question months ago,” the DSCC motion reads. “Nor is it about Mr. Sullivan’s reasons for running. Rather, it is about whether DOJ can enjoin Alaska’s lawful certification of the U.S. Senate election if the President’s preferred candidate loses.”
The government’s since-dropped opposition motion sees things a bit differently — in what might look like hindsight to the GOP.
“With no apparent sense of irony, Proposed Intervenors decry ‘a nationwide attack on free elections’—in defense of including on the ballot a sham candidate whose sole reason for running is to mislead voters into accidentally voting for him, with the goal of assisting the Democrat,” the DOJ argued in that defunct 13-page motion in opposition.
Now, the government is pushing for expedited discovery from Peltola’s campaign “regarding the reported conspiracy, including as to whether the Campaign attempted to deceive the Court by seeking an expedited ruling on a motion to dismiss when the Campaign may have been aware of the New York Times reporting before it was published.”
The post ‘No apparent sense of irony’: DOJ and Democratic Party groups battle it out over Trump admin lawsuit seeking to block certification of Alaska Senate race first appeared on Law & Crime.
