Two men named Dan Sullivan showed up on the same Alaska Senate ballot this fall, and federal investigators now say one of them may have been planted there to steal votes from the other.
Story Snapshot
- The New York Times reported that aides to Senate candidate Mary Peltola, campaign lawyers, and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff helped recruit a second “Dan Sullivan” to run against incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan.
- The Justice Department sued to block certification of the race if Sullivan lost and voter confusion played a role, alleging the second candidate tried to “dupe” Alaska voters.
- Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy ordered a formal investigation after the report broke, and the state asked the federal court to toss the lawsuit.
- Peltola and the second Sullivan, a retired teacher, both deny any coordination, calling the accusations “nonsense” and insisting there was “zero” contact.
What The New York Times Investigation Claims
The Times investigation, published October 28, 2026, drew on 12 sources, text messages, and internal documents. It described Peltola campaign aides, campaign lawyers, and national Democratic operatives working to get Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, onto the same ballot as Senator Dan S. Sullivan. Four names appeared on Alaska’s ranked-choice ballot: Peltola, the incumbent senator, the second Sullivan, and Gerald Heikes. Critics quickly nicknamed the newcomer “Decoy Dan.”
Ballots already made the distinction clear on paper. Next to the incumbent’s name, the ballot reads “Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) Incumbent,” separating him from the newcomer. Whether that printed label was enough to stop confused voters from picking the wrong name is exactly the question investigators are now trying to answer.
The Justice Department Steps In Before Votes Are Even Counted
The Justice Department filed suit in October 2026, asking a federal court to block certification of the Senate race if Sullivan lost and the outcome appeared “impacted by voter confusion”. The complaint reportedly accused the second Sullivan of trying to trick voters into thinking he was the sitting senator. That remedy only kicks in if Sullivan loses, a detail opponents argue looks political, since no court has yet ruled that anything illegal happened.
Governor Dunleavy did not wait for Washington. He ordered Alaska’s own investigation into how two men named Dan Sullivan wound up on the November 3 ballot. Alaska’s state government also pushed back against the federal lawsuit, asking the court to dismiss it outright, arguing it had no legal basis. That tension between state and federal action means two separate inquiries are now running at once, each testing different pieces of the same allegation.
Denials From Both Sullivans And The Peltola Campaign
Daniel J. Sullivan, the retired teacher, denied being recruited by Democrats at all. “Zero, none, zilch,” he said when asked about contact with Peltola’s campaign. Peltola herself told reporters, “I knew nothing about any other candidate on the ballot except for me and the incumbent,” and added, “I am not interested in tricking voters”. Her campaign called the entire controversy “nonsense” and said Peltola’s team lacked knowledge to confirm or deny why the second Sullivan filed in the first place.
That is secondary. The primary crime is finding a decoy Dan, and installing him as a candidate to purposely confuse voters, to rig an election. It’s a crime.
It’s so obvious that that’s what happened. They’re despicable people. If Alaska votes for @MaryPeltola, they deserve her. pic.twitter.com/7uxcORZMsG— Lisa A (@IamLisaRyan) November 1, 2026
Those denials matter, but they don’t erase the documents and text messages the Times says it reviewed showing campaign and party staff involved in recruiting the second Sullivan. A flat denial from the people accused isn’t the same as a document proving the recruitment never happened. Voters deserve to see the actual texts and records, not just competing press statements, before anyone declares this settled.
This Isn’t The First Time A Namesake Showed Up On A Ballot
Same-name ballot tricks have a history. A Washington state Republican activist once paid two extra men named Bob Ferguson to run against the Democratic attorney general candidate of the same name, hoping confused voters would split the vote. Washington’s law specifically bans candidacies meant to “confuse and mislead” voters, and those decoy candidates withdrew under legal pressure. Alaska has no such explicit statute, which is part of why this fight is heading to court instead of getting resolved overnight.
That gap in the law is the real story worth watching. If Alaska and the federal government can’t point to a clear rule banning this kind of namesake recruitment, the same trick could resurface in any state, from any party, in any close race. Voters count on knowing exactly who they’re choosing. A ballot that can be gamed by copying a name undermines that trust regardless of which side benefits.
What Comes Next For Alaska Voters
Subpoenas have reportedly gone out as the Justice Department pursues discovery, and depositions of campaign staff could reveal whether this was deliberate deception or ordinary, if aggressive, political maneuvering. Until documents are made public and testimony is taken under oath, the public is left weighing press denials against a federal lawsuit and a governor’s criminal probe. Alaskans deserve a final answer before, not after, the Senate seat is certified.
Sources:
nytimes.com, poynter.org, newsnationnow.com, washingtonexaminer.com, alaskasnewssource.com, newsweek.com, galvnews.com
