03.11.2026 23:00
The Senate race in Alaska left its mark on the US midterm elections. The candidacy of retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a namesake of incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan, threw things into turmoil. The New York Times claimed that some people from Democratic candidate Mary Peltola's team organized this name similarity to split the vote. Although Peltola categorically denied the allegations, the crisis quickly escalated.
The most unusual race of the midterm elections in the US is taking place in Alaska. The presence on the ballot of a second candidate with almost the same name as Republican Senator Dan Sullivan has brought allegations of manipulation of the elections. While it is alleged that Democratic candidate Mary Peltola spearheaded this candidacy, the controversy has moved to a Department of Justice investigation and to court.
TWO "DAN SULLIVANS" ON THE SAME BALLOT
The figure at the center of the controversy was retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. The name similarity of the candidate, who made it onto the ballot by passing the primary elections, to Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan confused voters. While Senator Sullivan argued that this candidate was put into the race to split the vote, Democrat Mary Peltola, accused of organizing the candidacy, denied the allegations, saying, "I am not interested in deceiving voters."
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE STATE TOOK ACTION
After allegations reported in the national press, the US Department of Justice expanded its criminal investigation and sent new subpoenas. Alaska's Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy also launched a separate statewide review. Donald Trump, who intervened in the matter, described the allegations as "election fraud."
COURT REJECTS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S REQUEST
The Department of Justice applied to a federal court to stop certification of the results in case Senator Sullivan loses. However, Judge Sharon Gleason rejected the request on the grounds that no workable plan for segregating the votes was presented and that the legal basis was insufficient. It was announced that the Department would appeal the decision.
FINALIZATION OF RESULTS MAY TAKE UNTIL NOVEMBER 18
It was reported that the clear result may not be announced until November 18 due to the "ranked-choice voting system" used in the state and the counting process for late-arriving ballots.