President Donald Trump escalated the Alaska ballot dispute on October 28, calling for Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola and challenger Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. to be removed from the ballot and prosecuted. He alleged that Democrats recruited Sullivan to confuse voters supporting Republican incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.
The demand followed a New York Times investigation into efforts by people associated with Peltola’s campaign and national Senate Democrats to recruit potential spoiler candidates. Peltola’s campaign denied involvement with either Sullivan campaign. The president’s allegations are disputed and should not be read as a finding of criminal wrongdoing.
The controversy widened on October 29 as federal investigators issued additional subpoenas, according to reporting by The Associated Press and Reuters. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy also ordered a state investigation into whether the alleged recruitment effort violated Alaska law.
Alaska ballot dispute centers on two Sullivans
The two candidates are different people. Dan S. Sullivan is the Republican senator seeking reelection. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. is a retired teacher from Petersburg whose presence in the race has prompted challenges from Republicans and the Trump administration.
Trump argued that the similar names could divert votes from the incumbent and benefit Peltola. Speaking to reporters before departing for a campaign trip on October 28, he said Peltola should leave the race and face criminal prosecution. He also demanded prosecution of the other Sullivan.
“To me, that’s voter fraud at the highest level,” Trump said, according to a published transcript of his remarks. He repeated his demands in social media posts, using the word “fake” to describe the challenger. That description is Trump’s characterization of a real candidate.
State election officials previously tried to exclude the Petersburg candidate, questioning whether his candidacy was intended to mislead voters. Alaska courts rejected his exclusion, and the state Supreme Court ordered that he be allowed on the ballot. That earlier eligibility decision is important background to the current controversy.
What the reporting alleges and Peltola denies
The Times reported that campaign aides, lawyers and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee personnel participated in discussions about recruiting candidates who could draw support away from the incumbent. Its account cited interviews, text messages and documents prepared for possible litigation, according to subsequent reporting.
Alaska’s News Source reported that former Peltola campaign manager Elisa Rios was a source for the allegations and later retracted her statements to the Times. The broadcaster said it had not independently verified the newspaper’s claims and had not received the underlying text messages.
Peltola’s campaign said it had no involvement with either Sullivan campaign. The DSCC also denied involvement with Dan J. Sullivan, according to TIME. The Petersburg candidate has previously denied running at Democrats’ request or having contact with Peltola’s campaign.
The Alaska ballot dispute therefore involves separate questions: what recruitment activity occurred, who knew about it, and whether any established conduct broke the law. Reporting about political maneuvering does not, by itself, resolve those questions or establish the president’s fraud allegation.
Federal and state investigations expand
Reuters reported on October 29, citing a person familiar with the matter, that the Justice Department had issued more than 40 subpoenas and document preservation requests, with more expected. Those investigative steps seek evidence; they are not a verdict about any candidate’s guilt.
A separate federal civil lawsuit seeks to prevent certification of Alaska’s Senate result under specified circumstances if the incumbent loses and votes for the other Sullivan could have changed the outcome. The administration amended that lawsuit on October 29, adding allegations drawn from the Times report.
Dunleavy directed Alaska’s Department of Public Safety to examine whether state laws were violated and whether criminal charges or civil action were warranted. Alaska Public Media reported that the Alaska Bureau of Investigation would handle the probe, while officials declined to describe its precise focus.
What happens before Election Day
Legal experts interviewed by Alaska Public Media questioned whether the conduct described in the reporting, without additional evidence, amounted to a crime. Their assessments do not determine the outcome of either investigation.
The Alaska ballot dispute remains unresolved as voters prepare for the November 3 general election. Trump’s demand is not itself a ballot-removal order. The next scheduled electoral milestone is Election Day, while the investigations and litigation continue.
