Key facts
- A judge ruled that a candidate named Dan J. Sullivan is eligible to appear on Alaska's Republican primary ballot.
- The challenger shares the same name and party affiliation as incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan.
- The ruling overturned a decision by the Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher to disqualify the challenger.
- Judge Thomas Matthews stated the disqualification was based on a new, unstated 'good faith' criteria.
- The challenger is a retired teacher from Petersburg.
- The incumbent senator has accused the challenger of coordinating with Democrats to confuse voters.
A judge has ruled that a retired teacher named Dan J. Sullivan, who shares the same name and Republican party affiliation as incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, is eligible to appear on Alaska's August primary ballot. Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews overturned an earlier decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, who had disqualified the challenger, stating his candidacy was not filed in good faith and was intended to confuse voters.
Judge Matthews found that Beecher's decision was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law, or the Division's regulations, but rather on a new, unstated 'good faith' criterion. The ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court, and a final decision is needed by Tuesday for ballot printing.
The incumbent Senator Sullivan and his allies have expressed concern that the challenger's presence could confuse voters, especially under Alaska's election system where the top four candidates, regardless of party, advance to the ranked-choice general election. Senator Sullivan has accused the challenger of coordinating with Democrats and the campaign of his main opponent, Mary Peltola, to create confusion and boost Peltola's chances. Both Peltola's campaign and state Democrats have denied these allegations, as has the challenger.
Attorneys for the state had argued that the Constitution does not require states to place a "sham candidate" on the ballot. However, attorneys for the challenger contended that the Constitution outlines only three exclusive qualifications for the Senate: age, citizenship, and residency, and that Beecher lacked the legal authority to remove their client. The challenger, a former U.S. Forest Service employee, stated that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent provided him with an "instant megaphone" and that he had considered running due to frustration with the senator.