Lina Hope
In a move that has sent shockwaves through the American legal and political landscape, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit on Friday under the direction of President Donald Trump. The legal action seeks to pre-emptively block the certification of Alaska’s upcoming U.S. Senate election, specifically targeting the potential re-election bid of incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan. The filing comes amid a backdrop of high-stakes rhetoric from the White House, with the President utilizing social media to cast doubt on Alaska’s unique electoral infrastructure.
Despite the gravity of the legal filing, election officials in the Last Frontier maintain that the lawsuit is a procedural ghost. Early voting is already underway, and state officials have confirmed that the legal challenge will have no impact on the administration of the polls, the counting of ballots, or the ultimate certification of the results. As Alaskans cast their ballots, the state remains committed to a process that it insists is both secure and transparent.
The Chronology of a Conflict
The tension between the White House and the Alaskan electoral system reached a boiling point last week when President Trump issued a series of late-night posts. These communications targeted not only Senator Dan Sullivan but also his colleague, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and the state’s broader electoral framework, which utilizes a combination of open, all-candidate primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for general elections.
The chronology of this dispute traces back to earlier this year, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in June that a candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan was legally eligible to appear on the ballot. This ruling, which addressed the presence of a "same-name" candidate—a phenomenon often used in political gamesmanship to confuse voters—was the state’s final word on the matter. However, the DOJ’s sudden intervention four months later has effectively sought to relitigate a settled state issue, sparking concerns among legal scholars regarding the extent of federal authority in state-administered elections.
The "Two Dan Sullivans" and the RCV Defense
A central point of contention in the current political rhetoric involves the presence of two candidates named "Sullivan" on the ballot. Critics of the current system, including the President, have suggested that Alaska’s ranked-choice voting (RCV) system exacerbates confusion and facilitates electoral manipulation.
However, proponents of RCV argue that the system is actually a deterrent to such tactics. In traditional plurality systems, a "spoiler" candidate with the same name as a front-runner can siphon off enough votes to shift the outcome. Under Alaska’s RCV model, voters who are uncertain about which candidate is the "true" Senator Sullivan are empowered to rank both candidates on their ballot. This ensures that their vote ultimately contributes to the tally of their preferred candidate, effectively neutralizing the "spoiler" effect.
Senator Dan S. Sullivan himself has leaned into this reality, recently releasing a 30-second jingle to clarify the situation for his base: "Dan S. is your number 1, if he’s not rank him second," the ad advises, further instructing voters to avoid ranking the opposition candidate, Mary. This proactive messaging suggests that the "two Dan Sullivans" issue is a manageable hurdle rather than a systemic failure. As one observer noted, "Blaming RCV for the ‘two Dan Sullivans’ is like getting mad at the guardrail, not the car that tried to drive you off the road."
Data-Driven Reality: The Neutrality of Ranked Choice Voting
One of the most persistent claims regarding RCV is that it carries an inherent partisan bias. However, empirical data from Alaska’s recent electoral history tells a different story. The system has proven to be ideologically agnostic, resulting in a diverse slate of winners that includes conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans, and moderate Democrats.
Crucially, President Trump himself won Alaska in 2024 using the same RCV system that he is currently criticizing. In the 2022 election cycle, Alaskan voters utilized RCV to elect a conservative Republican governor alongside a moderate Democratic congresswoman, demonstrating that the system reflects the nuanced preferences of the electorate rather than favoring a single party.
Furthermore, the data regarding voter competence contradicts the narrative that RCV is "too confusing." According to an exit poll conducted in December 2024, 84% of Alaska voters described the RCV process as simple. In the state’s inaugural RCV election in 2022, the validity rate of ballots cast was an astonishing 99.9%, indicating that voters are not only comfortable with the system but highly adept at navigating it.
The Legal Consensus: A "Bottom of the Barrel" Play
The DOJ’s lawsuit has been met with near-universal condemnation from the legal community. Prominent election law experts—many of whom have spent decades litigating high-profile constitutional cases—have characterized the filing as legally baseless.
Derek Muller, a professor at Notre Dame, labeled the legal argument as "one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen." This sentiment was echoed by UCLA’s Rick Hasen, who called it "the worst complaint I’ve ever seen," and NYU’s Richard Pildes, who noted that the suit has "no realistic chance of success in the courts."
Perhaps most damning is the assessment of Ben Ginsberg, a veteran Republican election law expert who served as counsel for the George W. Bush campaigns in 2000 and 2004. Ginsberg described the move as a "desperation play," noting that the DOJ is "scraping the bottom of the barrel" by ignoring clear precedents.
Legal experts have highlighted two major hurdles the DOJ faces:
- The Major Questions Doctrine: A legal principle that requires clear congressional authorization for agencies to take actions of vast economic or political significance.
- The Purcell Principle: A long-standing Supreme Court guideline that discourages federal courts from intervening in election procedures close to the date of an election to prevent voter confusion and administrative chaos.
Given that the Alaska Supreme Court already resolved the ballot eligibility issue in June, the DOJ’s attempt to override a state court ruling via federal intervention faces an uphill battle that many believe is doomed to failure.
Implications for American Democracy
The implications of United States v. Alaska extend far beyond the borders of the state. By attempting to use the Department of Justice to block the certification of a state election, the federal government is wading into a constitutional gray area that threatens the traditional balance of power between the states and the federal government.
The primary risk, according to constitutional scholars, is the precedent it sets for future cycles. If the DOJ is permitted to challenge state-certified results based on administrative grievances that the state has already resolved, it could embolden future administrations to use the machinery of the federal government to influence local electoral outcomes.
However, the resilience of the Alaska system remains the ultimate check. Because the lawsuit does not grant the federal government the power to stop the actual counting or the state’s obligation to certify the results, the process is expected to continue uninterrupted. The voters of Alaska, through their ballots, will remain the ultimate arbiters of their representation.
As the legal drama unfolds in the courtroom, the reality on the ground remains unchanged. Ballots are being counted, the system is performing as designed, and the democratic process—despite the unprecedented pressure from the federal level—is moving toward its conclusion. Whether this lawsuit will be remembered as a significant turning point in election law or a fleeting political gesture remains to be seen, but for now, it stands as a stark reminder of the intensifying friction between federal authority and the autonomy of state electoral systems.
Lina Irawan
Basiran
