The Alaska Senate probe ordered by Gov. Mike Dunleavy is examining alleged efforts to recruit a candidate with a name similar to incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan, as the governor questions the state’s election system ahead of the November 3 vote.
Alaska’s Department of Public Safety confirmed on October 29 that the Alaska Bureau of Investigation had opened an investigation at Dunleavy’s request. The agency said it would work with the Department of Law to examine the facts and determine whether state laws were violated.
The investigation concerns allegations, rather than a finding that a candidate or campaign committed a crime. Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola and the Petersburg challenger, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., have denied involvement in the alleged coordination.
What the Alaska Senate probe will examine
The public safety department said investigators were reviewing alleged conduct described in a New York Times report. Officials declined to release additional details, citing the active investigation.
ABC News reported that the newspaper’s account alleged involvement by people associated with Peltola’s campaign and national Senate Democrats in recruiting potential spoiler candidates. The reporting described an effort intended to draw support away from the incumbent.
Peltola’s campaign told ABC News it had no involvement with either Sullivan campaign. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee separately denied involvement with Daniel J. Sullivan.
The challenger has previously denied discussing his candidacy with Peltola’s campaign. Those denials remain relevant while investigators seek evidence about who participated, what occurred and whether any conduct violated a specific law.
Dunleavy questions the election system
Dunleavy told Fox News Digital that traditional party primaries would have prevented the second Sullivan from reaching the general election.
That argument concerns Alaska’s combination of a nonpartisan primary and ranked-choice general election. They perform different functions: the primary determines who advances, while ranking determines how general-election votes are counted.
The Division of Elections explains that the top four primary finishers advance regardless of political affiliation. In the general election, voters may rank candidates in preference order, with lower preferences considered if their higher-ranked candidate is eliminated.
FactCheck.org reported a counterargument from Harvard election-law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos: ranking the incumbent second could preserve a voter’s preference if the other Sullivan were eliminated. That possibility depends on how voters actually rank their choices.
Why both Sullivans remain on the ballot
The incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan, and retired Petersburg teacher Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. are different people. The similar names prompted an earlier investigation by Alaska election officials.
In a June 15 determination, Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher sought to exclude the challenger. Her letter cited his requested ballot name, recent party-affiliation change and similarities between campaign websites as evidence supporting the division’s concern about confusion.
State courts subsequently rejected that exclusion. FactCheck.org’s review explains that the lower court found the division had relied on a good-faith candidacy requirement absent from the governing law, and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed ballot access.
That earlier eligibility ruling did not resolve every allegation raised by the later reporting. Equally, the renewed Alaska Senate probe does not itself remove anyone from the ballot.
Federal litigation is a separate track
On October 30, the Justice Department asked a federal judge for a preliminary injunction that would block certification of Alaska’s Senate result under specified circumstances, Reuters reported.
The request concerns a scenario in which the incumbent loses and votes for the other Sullivan could theoretically change the outcome. It is a request for judicial relief, rather than an order already preventing certification.
The civil case and the state investigation have different purposes. The lawsuit seeks election-related relief; state investigators are examining possible violations of Alaska law.
Hourly Times’ earlier coverage of the Alaska ballot dispute explains Trump’s demands for removal and prosecution, alongside the campaign denials and previous ballot-access litigation.
What remains unresolved before Election Day
Officials have not publicly established the full facts underlying the recruitment allegations. A probe, subpoena or lawsuit is not a conviction, and the competing accounts should not be treated as settled findings.
The public safety department said it would provide accurate information as its investigation progresses but withheld operational details. The Alaska Senate probe continues as voters prepare for the November 3 general election.
