Alaska Urges Federal Judge to Dismiss Trump-Backed Lawsuit Challenging Senate Race Certification

State Attorneys Urge Federal Judge to Toss Trump-Backed Alaska Senate Lawsuit

Alaska’s Republican-run state government urged a federal judge on Saturday to dismiss a lawsuit filed at President Donald Trump’s direction to stop the certification of a possible Democratic win in the state’s pivotal U.S. Senate race. Writing that there is “no reason for this Court to entertain this meritless lawsuit any longer,” the state attorney general’s office filed a scathing response ahead of a deadline set by U.S. District Court Judge Sharon L. Gleason, as reported by the Associated Press.

An Alaska Senate candidate has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration to block certification of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race if the Republican doesn’t win. https://t.co/6pgzREU96t

— https://x.com/fox5ny/status/2115243441395286401

The Department of Justice complaint has drawn heavy criticism from election law experts. It demands that Judge Gleason halt the certification of a potential victory by Democrat Mary Peltola until authorities determine whether voters experienced confusion from a second ballot candidate sharing the same name as her main Republican rival, incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. On Friday, the DOJ expanded its request, asking the judge to separate all ballots showing votes for the second Dan Sullivan to evaluate whether voters were fooled into wasting their votes for a spoiler candidate.

The Practical Impossibility of Ballot Separation

In Saturday’s filing, Alaska state officials pushed back sharply against the federal government’s demands. They characterized the proposal to isolate specific ballots as “both disturbing and impossible,” noting that executing such a request would directly violate voter privacy protections.

Instagram

The state’s legal team emphasized that election officials intentionally designed the ballot layout to minimize confusion. Dan Sullivan is listed as a Republican and the incumbent, whereas the other appears simply as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.”

“State officials carefully designed the ballot to minimize voter confusion.”

“The Court should immediately dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice and allow state officials to conduct the general election — including ballot counting and certification — free from unwarranted federal interference.”

Criminal Probes and Campaign Involvements

The legal battle escalated after The New York Times reported that internal text messages and posts appear to show the Democrats’ campaign was involved in recruiting the second Sullivan—a retired school teacher in the remote fishing village of Petersburg—onto the ballot. Following the report, President Trump demanded Peltola’s prosecution. Alaska’s Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy also announced a state-level probe into the matter.

Peltola has denied any involvement. Meanwhile, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled during the summer that the second candidate fully satisfied all legal requirements to stay on. State attorneys noted in their filing that the newly reported details regarding Peltola’s campaign do not alter his legal ballot eligibility, writing that “Not every wrong can be righted in federal court.”

Unusual Legal Alliances and Federal Authority Arguments

The Trump administration’s legal strategy relies on a preamble to a 1990s voter registration law, arguing it grants the executive branch responsibility for ensuring federal election integrity. To support this, the DOJ issued multiple subpoenas and announced a criminal investigation as the administration utilizes federal powers to support Trump’s side in the midterm election.

🚨BREAKING: Judge DISMISSES Trump’s EPSTEIN LAWSUIT…

This aggressive federal stance has created unusual political alignments. Peltola’s campaign and voting rights groups joined state officials in urging Judge Gleason to throw out the case. In a separate filing, the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the federal government’s justification:

“Imagine if the federal executive could pluck a few words like ‘election integrity’ from some statutory preamble and, on that basis alone, bend the machinery of state elections to his will, preemptively blocking certification of a U.S. Senate election to protect his preferred candidate from defeat and then subjecting voters to a law-enforcement-led inquest about who they ‘really’ supported. Imagine that world and ask whether it is what the Framers wanted or precisely what they most feared.”