A Superior Court judge has ruled that Dan J. Sullivan, a retired Petersburg teacher, can remain on Alaska’s August 18 Republican primary ballot for U.S. Senate, overturning a state election board’s decision to disqualify him. The ruling, issued Friday by Judge Thomas A. Matthews, rejects the Division of Elections’ claim that Sullivan’s candidacy lacked “good faith” and was intended to confuse voters by mirroring incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan’s name. The state has until Tuesday to appeal before ballots are printed.
Why the Judge Rejected the State’s ‘Good Faith’ Argument
Matthews’ decision hinges on a legal distinction: the state’s Division of Elections had no statutory authority to impose a “good faith” standard for candidacy. According to the judge’s 30-page order, the Division’s June 15 ruling to disqualify Sullivan relied on an unstated criterion that doesn’t appear in Alaska election law, the U.S. Constitution, or the Division’s own regulations. As NBC News reported, Matthews wrote that the Division’s decision was based on a “new, previously unstated, ‘good faith’ criteria” — a move the judge called legally unsound.
The Division had argued that Sullivan’s candidacy was a “sham” designed to confuse voters, pointing to similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, as well as his work with a consultant with Democratic ties. But Matthews dismissed these claims, writing that concerns about voter confusion could be addressed through ballot formatting rather than disqualification. The judge also rejected the Division’s argument that Sullivan’s late filing — he submitted his candidacy three days before the June 1 deadline — should bar his appeal.
A Timeline of the Legal Battle Over Two Dan Sullivans
- May 29, 2026: Dan J. Sullivan, a retired Petersburg teacher, files his candidacy for U.S. Senate, three days before the June 1 deadline.
- June 1: The Division of Elections initially accepts his filing and certifies his name on the ballot as “Sullivan, Dan J. (Registered Republican).”
- June 1: The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) sends a letter to the Division and Lt. Governor Nancy Dahlstrom, alleging Sullivan’s candidacy was filed “with the intention of confusing and misleading voters.”
- June 3: Sullivan responds in writing, denying any intent to mislead and stating his family are long-time Alaska Republicans. He claims no contact with Mary Peltola’s campaign.
- June 8: Lt. Governor Dahlstrom requests Sullivan submit a signed affidavit detailing his party affiliation history, campaign website design, and any interactions with Democratic consultants. Sullivan later says he never received the letter directly.
- June 10: The Alaska Republican Party (ARP) files two formal complaints with the Division, alleging Sullivan misrepresented his party affiliation and that his candidacy was filed to confuse voters.
- June 15: The Division rules Sullivan ineligible, citing lack of good faith. Sullivan’s attorney, Jeffrey Robertson, says they will appeal.
- June 27, 2026: Judge Matthews overturns the Division’s decision, ordering Sullivan placed on the ballot.
- June 28, 2026: The state has until Tuesday to appeal before ballots for the Aug. 18 primary are printed.
What the State’s Arguments Looked Like — And Why They Failed
The Division’s case against Sullivan rested on three main claims, all of which Judge Matthews dismantled in his ruling. First, the state argued that Sullivan’s candidacy was a “sham” because his campaign website resembled the senator’s and because he had worked with a consultant who had previously worked with Democrats. But as Alaska’s News Source reported, Matthews found no evidence that Sullivan’s website was designed to deceive voters or that his consultant work was coordinated with any Democratic campaign.
Second, the Division claimed Sullivan’s late filing — submitted just three days before the deadline — showed bad faith. But Matthews rejected this, noting that the Division had initially accepted Sullivan’s filing without objection and that the late submission did not violate any election law. The judge also pointed out that the Division had not previously enforced a “good faith” standard, making its sudden application retroactive and arbitrary.
Finally, the state argued that allowing Sullivan on the ballot would confuse voters, given the identical names and party affiliation. Matthews countered that this issue could be resolved through ballot design — such as listing candidates with their full names or middle initials — rather than disqualification. The judge’s ruling leaves open the possibility that the Division could still adjust ballot formatting to minimize confusion, but it cannot exclude Sullivan based on speculative motives.
Who Stands to Gain — And Who Loses — From the Ruling
The ruling is a tactical win for Dan J. Sullivan, who now has a path to stay on the ballot despite the incumbent senator’s campaign and the state GOP’s objections. For Sen. Dan Sullivan, the decision complicates his reelection bid, particularly in a race where the top four candidates advance to a ranked-choice general election. The presence of a second Sullivan on the ballot could dilute votes across the field, though it remains unclear how much impact this will have.
Mary Peltola, the Democratic former U.S. Rep. and Sullivan’s main opponent, has denied any coordination with Sullivan’s campaign. But the judge’s ruling may still benefit her indirectly by adding another Republican to the primary, potentially splitting the GOP vote. As NBC News noted, Peltola and Sullivan are the only two candidates in the race to have raised significant funds, making this a high-stakes contest for both sides.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has already framed Sullivan as a “sham candidate,” but the judge’s decision forces the GOP to confront a legal reality: the state cannot simply disqualify a candidate based on accusations of bad faith. The NRSC’s letter to the Division in early June — which accused Sullivan of filing “with the intention of confusing and misleading voters” — now carries the weight of a formal GOP position, but it lacks legal standing without evidence of actual coordination.
What Happens Next — And What’s Still Uncertain
The state has until Tuesday to appeal Matthews’ ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court. If the appeal succeeds, Sullivan’s name could still be removed from the ballot before the Aug. 18 primary. But if the ruling stands, Sullivan will appear alongside the incumbent, setting up a potential clash in the ranked-choice general election where voters rank candidates in order of preference.
One key question is how the Division will format the ballot to avoid confusion. Matthews suggested that adjustments — such as listing candidates with their full names or middle initials — could mitigate voter uncertainty. However, the state’s attorneys had previously argued that no ballot design could fully eliminate confusion, as Alaska’s News Source reported in their filing. The judge’s order does not prevent the Division from making such changes, but it does not require them either.
For Sullivan, the ruling is a rare legal victory in a race where the stakes are high. Alaska’s U.S. Senate seat is one of the most competitive in the country, and the presence of two candidates with the same name and party affiliation adds an unusual twist. Whether this will help or hurt Sullivan’s chances remains to be seen — but for now, he has secured his place on the ballot, at least temporarily.
What is clear is that the legal battle is not over. The state’s appeal to the Supreme Court could drag out until July, leaving little time for ballot adjustments before the primary. Meanwhile, Sullivan’s campaign — which has denied any coordination with Democrats — will now focus on making its case to voters. The next few weeks will determine whether the judge’s ruling holds and whether the GOP’s efforts to disqualify Sullivan succeed in the courts.
One thing is certain: this is far from the end of the story. The Sullivan vs. Sullivan saga has already exposed deep divisions within the Alaska GOP and raised questions about how far election officials can go to police ballot access. As the state prepares its appeal, the question remains: will the courts uphold the judge’s ruling, or will Dan J. Sullivan’s name be struck from the ballot after all?
