An attorney advising the state Legislature says the Division of Elections likely lacked legal justification to block Dan. J. Sullivan of Petersburg from running in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race.
The Division of Elections ruled Monday that Sullivan could not be on the ballot because, as the Division director said, he did not file “in good faith.”
That decision came after Sen. Dan Sullivan alleged the challenger’s candidacy was a “dirty trick” by Democrats. His Republican allies filed official complaints, saying the Petersburg Sullivan, a retired teacher, was trying to confuse voters by using the same name and party affiliation as the incumbent.
Andrew Dunmire, an attorney with the nonpartisan Legislative Affairs Agency, wrote a nearly five-page memo on the controversy. The Petersburg Sullivan appears to meet the three qualifications the U.S. Constitution requires of senators, Dunmire said: He’s over 30, a U.S. citizen for nine years or more, and a state resident.
“To impose additional requirements on Mr. Sullivan — such as a requirement that he filed to run ‘in good faith’ — would improperly add to the exclusive list of Constitutional qualifications,” Dunmore wrote.
Democratic State Rep. Andrew Gray of Anchorage requested the memo and is holding an oversight hearing on the subject Monday. Gray said he doesn’t know the Petersburg man and isn’t taking a position on his motives.
“What matters is, is he qualified to be on the ballot, and what authority does the division of elections have to take someone off the ballot if they meet the requirements?” Gray said.
Gray said he suspects the Division of Elections might not be acting as a neutral player. He cited a 2024 case, when the Division argued in court that it had to let Eric Hafner, a federal inmate in New York, appear on the Alaska ballot as a Democrat. That was over the objections of the state Democratic Party, which claimed Hafner would not meet the residency requirement by Election Day due to his long prison sentence.
At the time, the Elections Division said it had no authority to question Hafner’s stated intention of future residency.
“In that case, he was allowed to stay on the ballot, and now we have a case, two years later, where there’s a candidate who potentially would take votes away from the Republican incumbent, and in that case, he’s removed from the ballot,” Gray said. “So it appears that it’s inconsistent, and it appears that the inconsistency might have a partisan motivation behind it.”
Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher has declined Gray’s invitation to speak at the hearing he’s called. Beecher said she’s got pressing deadlines to prepare for the upcoming elections.
“We remain committed to transparency and cooperation and would welcome the opportunity to participate once the current election season has ended,” she wrote. “Thank you for your understanding.”
Dunmire said that while a candidate’s name can’t appear in a misleading way on the ballot, that doesn’t mean the Petersburg Sullivan must be dropped entirely. Instead, Dunmire wrote, the Division of Elections could design the ballot in a way that allows voters to differentiate between the two.
Petersburg Dan Sullivan has said his aim isn’t to fool voters. He said he’s dissatisfied with the namesake senator and wants to provide an alternative.
He’s read the Dunmire memo and agrees with it, he said by text Wednesday. He has not yet announced whether he will challenge the state’s decision to take him off the ballot, but he said he has sought legal advice.
