Dan Sullivan Faces Double Trouble in Alaska Senate Race

Voters in the Alaska U.S. Senate race will see two candidates with nearly identical names on November 3. The ballot lists incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and Daniel J. Sullivan, a schoolteacher from Petersburg. State election officials recently altered the ballot layout to distinguish the two men. They listed the incumbent as a Republican and marked him as the current officeholder. They left the challenger without a party designation. This specific design choice has not been used for an incumbent in at least ten years.

The addition of the challenger followed a legal battle that began in September. Daniel J. Sullivan filed his paperwork to run as a Republican just three days before the deadline. State officials attempted to block his entry onto the ballot. A judge ruled in June that no Alaska law prevented his appearance on the ballot. The state Supreme Court later affirmed that decision. With the legal challenge exhausted, the Division of Elections moved to the ballot design phase to ensure clarity for voters.

The strategy of using similar names to confuse voters or siphon support is not new to American politics. In the 1946 congressional primary in Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy faced an opponent named Joseph Russo. Reports indicate that Kennedy’s aide paid a janitor with the same name to enter the race. Kennedy won the election, taking more votes than the two Russos combined. In 1954, a local businessman named John Francis Kennedy, who was not related to the former president, won an election for Massachusetts treasurer and receiver-general. His victory was attributed in large part to the familiarity of his name.

Sometimes candidates run not to win votes, but to deliver a message. In 1978, Don Sprouse ran for Congress in South Carolina as an independent. He held a press conference to criticize his opponent, a Jewish refugee from Austria, for not being a Christian. Sprouse received 1,693 votes. His opponent lost the race. Years later, allegations surfaced that Sprouse was a paid surrogate for his Republican rival. Those claims followed the rival into a 1986 gubernatorial campaign.

Legal challenges to these tactics often fail because the laws are narrow. In 2010, two Democratic officials in Michigan placed candidates on the ballot without their knowledge. The officials were charged with perjury and forgery. The charges stemmed from forged signatures rather than the strategic intent behind the ballot entries. Most state election codes address false declarations or forged paperwork. Few laws specifically target the recruitment of namesakes for the purpose of confusion.

Alaska’s election rules make this tactic inexpensive to execute. Candidates pay a $100 fee to get on the ballot. There is no petition requirement. The state uses a top-four primary system where candidates choose their own party labels. This structure limits the ability of political parties to vet candidates before they appear on the ballot. The lack of specific state laws targeting surname confusion leaves the issue largely unregulated.

Prosecutors in other states have found success by focusing on campaign finance crimes. In a 2020 Florida race, a political operative was convicted of three felonies for recruiting and paying a decoy candidate. Another Florida party chair was convicted for planting a progressive candidate to siphon votes. In Washington state, it is a felony to run under a rival’s surname with the intent to confuse voters. Two candidates named Bob Ferguson dropped out of a 2024 gubernatorial race under threat of prosecution.

Alaska has no comparable felony statute. Under a 1995 Supreme Court decision, states cannot add their own qualifications for members of Congress. This ruling limits the power of states to impose new rules on federal candidates. The current ballot in Alaska stands as is. Voters will cast their ballots for one of two Sullivans on November 3.