The Law and Democrats Allegedly Recruiting Second "Dan Sullivan" to Run in Alaska Senate Race

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, October 29). The Law and Democrats Allegedly Recruiting Second "Dan Sullivan" to Run in Alaska Senate Race. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/10/29/the-law-and-democrats-allegedly-recruiting-second-dan-sullivan-to-run-in-alaska-senate-race/

Dated from the outlet's own feed. Check the original for its byline.

Reason · collected 2026-10-29 · by Eugene Volokh

Quick Summary

Election law expert Rick Hasen discusses claims made by The New York Times suggesting that Democrats associated with Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola and Democratic officials recruited a second "Dan Sullivan" to run against incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan, aiming to siphon votes from the incumbent. Hasen explores potential legal implications but finds them unlikely, arguing that such actions are generally considered within political norms despite their controversial nature. He also notes that Alaska's ranked-choice voting system mitigates the intended effect of splitting votes between the two candidates named Dan Sullivan.
Written by AI on 2026-10-29, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

Mary Peltola's campaign, running for the U.S. Senate seat in Alaska against incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan, was involved in efforts to place another candidate named Dan J. Sullivan on the ballot to confuse voters. According to reports from The New York Times and other outlets, text messages between members of Peltola’s team discussed recruiting individuals with the same name as their opponent. Election authorities attempted to disqualify the second Dan Sullivan but failed to do so in time for the election.

The plan also reportedly involved creating a third-party "MAGA party" to siphon votes from incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan, though this idea was eventually abandoned. The race is seen as crucial because it could determine which party controls the Senate, with Democrats currently holding 47 seats compared to Republicans' 53.

On election day and in the immediate aftermath, Republican supporters expressed concern that they might have mistakenly voted for "Decoy Dan" Sullivan instead of incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan, raising fears about potential vote confusion. The New York Times investigation also revealed efforts by a Democratic PAC to send voter guides replacing Sen. Dan Sullivan with the spoiler candidate.

Incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan has accused Democrats of engaging in election cheating, highlighting this as one of the most significant election controversies in Alaska's history.

Written for “Alaska Senate Race Controversy” on 2026-11-04, grounded in this article and the 101 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Alaska Senate Race Controversy
Politics · 102 article(s) covering the same event. Compare every outlet's account →

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 42% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
The Guardian
Hedges 2 of 26 claims Outlet record 66/100
CBS News
⚖️ Leans right Hedges 1 of 3 claims Outlet record 65/100
ABC News (US)
Hedges 3 of 23 claims Outlet record 67/100
CBS News
⚖️ Leans right Hedges 1 of 2 claims Outlet record 65/100
Fox News
⚖️ Leans strongly right Hedges 1 of 31 claims Outlet record 68/100
BBC News
Hedges 3 of 31 claims Outlet record 68/100
CBS News
Hedges 0 of 2 claims Outlet record 65/100
CBS News
⚖️ Leans right Hedges 0 of 2 claims Outlet record 65/100
Fox News
Hedges 5 of 17 claims Outlet record 68/100
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
19
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
42%
8 of 19 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
102
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-29 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 1100 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
192 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 In May 2025, Harvard revoked Plaintiff's tenure and terminated her appointment with HBS.
🔮 The requirement would hold DSPs liable for their failure to adhere to state-set publication standards, not only "treat[ing] [them] as … publisher[s] or speaker[s]," but treating them as publishers subject to sweeping state controls.
🔮 From Sanchez v. Almond, decided Wednesday by Judge John McConnell (D.R.I.): Mr. Sanchez began working at the office of Rhode Island Governor Daniel J. McKee in May 2021 as a "constituent services" staffer.
🔮 Beauchamp believed that the post appeared to condone murder based on the victim's political viewpoints and statements and became concerned that this post and perception would reflect on GCAO in the public's eyes and thereby undermine the public's trust in GCAO's official duty to prosecute homicides without bias and without regard to a victim's views, statements, or affiliations.
2026-11-02 · assertive framing · Firing for "Rot in Hell Charlie Kirk" Post Upheld
🔮 After Judge Covington announced that she would be denying McClain's suppression motion, Outlaw stood up and said "the judge is a cocksucker" loud enough for Judge Covington to hear.
🔮 According to the Complaint, in August 2024, Plaintiffs and other District community members learned that then-member of the Board of School Directors of Souderton Area School District (the "Board") William Formica posted lewd comments on social media about Vice President Kamala Harris, disparaging teachers and non-English speakers, and deriding diversity programs.
🔮 Some excerpts from the long First Superseding Indictment in U.S. v. Hakim (E.D. Mich.), filed Oct. 21, alleging conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate commerce as well as, for two defendants, witness intimidation and destruction of property to prevent seizure (8 of the 12 defendants had originally been indicted in May); the targets included UM officials and businesses connected with them, as well as the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit:
🔮 Because "[t]he costs and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through [discovery] could chill free speech nearly as effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether[,]" a public figure plaintiff must plausibly allege actual malice at the outset of the litigation.
🔮 The First Amendment forbids a State from using its investigative power that way, and I will not allow it while this case is pending.
🔮 The same logic could apply to nuns who had felt religious pressure to do the educational or nursing work that their order was known for, or to monks who had felt religious pressure to do agricultural work that supports the monastery.
2026-10-30 · assertive framing · Amicus Brief in OneTaste Criminal Prosecution
Also by Eugene Volokh
Open Thread
2026-11-03 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 192 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

Alaska DOJ Democrats Election Law Blog UCLA

Subjects

Alaska GPE · 5× Democrats NORP · 4× DOJ ORG · 2× Dan S. Sullivan PERSON · 2× Dan Sullivans PERSON · 2× Democratic NORP · 1× Election Law Blog ORG · 1× New York Times ORG · 1× Rick Hasen PERSON · 1× UCLA ORG · 1×

Narrative

Today's New York Times story, if true, strikes me as a political bombshell: despite public denials of a connection, people associated with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Alaska Mary Peltola and Democratic Party officials recruited the second "Dan Sullivan" to run against the incumbent Republican U.S. Senator from Alaska, Dan S. Sullivan.
framing: mixed · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-29
🔮 The hope would be to siphon votes away from Sullivan.

Claims (19 extracted, 8 hedged)

Election law expert and UCLA Prof. Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) has a post about this; an excerpt: asserted
Hasen → have → excerpt
Today's New York Times story, if true, strikes me as a political bombshell: despite public denials of a connection, people associated with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Alaska Mary Peltola and Democratic Party officials recruited the second "Dan Sullivan" to run against the incumbent Republican U.S. Senator from Alaska, Dan S. Sullivan. asserted
people → strike → Alaska
The hope would be to siphon votes away from Sullivan. asserted
hope → siphon → Sullivan
(As a political play, I'm skeptical that this would work, given Alaska's ranked choice voting approach would allow ranking both Dan Sullivans as 1 and 2, thereby not helping Peltola. asserted
approach → work → Peltola
To begin with, I don't think it has any bearing at all on the current litigation in which the U.S. Department of Justice seeks to delay certification of the race if Dan S. Sullivan narrowly loses on grounds of purported voter confusion. asserted
Sullivan → begin → confusion
The lawsuit is not going anywhere for any number of reasons, but even assuming DOJ's theory that it can sue to block certification, it is irrelevant as to why voters might face confusion over the two Dan Sullivans. uncertain
voters → go → Sullivans
(This has not stopped DOJ from now supporting DSCC intervention so that it can get discovery over a potential "conspiracy"). asserted
it → stop → conspiracy
[Disclosure: I will soon be filing a motion to file an amicus brief on my own behalf supporting the State of Alaska in this case. asserted
I → file → case
] Second, if there is any evidence that anyone lied under oath about the cooperation between Democrats and Dan J. Sullivan, that could be grounds for a perjury prosecution. uncertain
that → be → prosecution
Third, this leaves the question whether this could be prosecuted as some kind of conspiracy against voters. uncertain
this → leave → voters
To begin with, it is regular practice for people to support candidates for bad motives: Republicans boosting Greens and Democrats boosting Libertarians. asserted
Democrats → begin → Libertarians
It turns out that Elon Musk alone may have bankrolled left-leaning Cornel West's quest to get on the 2024 presidential eiection ballot. uncertain
Musk → turn → ballot
From the Times's story: "Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska. asserted
tactics → stack → Alaska
But this operation, which has not been reported before, reveals the lengths to which Democrats went to seek advantage in a Senate race that could determine control of the chamber." uncertain
that → report → chamber
This is a case about someone running for office with impure motives who is lucky enough to have a name that could confuse some voters. uncertain
that → run → voters
The solution to this problem is counterspeech (as in: "Don't vote for J.! Vote for the real Senator Daniel S. Sullivan".) asserted
solution → vote → Sullivan
I don't see how the government could criminalize his running for office for having impure motives. uncertain
government → see → motives
And if it could do so, then it could be a crime every time that the Republican Party backs a Green Party candidate, or Democrats support a MAGA candidate in a primary in the hopes that the candidate would be weaker against a Democrat in the general election. uncertain
candidate → do → election
This stuff happens all the time…. asserted
stuff → happen → ?
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support