Mike Dunleavy's probe ignores the Alaska Supreme Court's order
By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta ·
Governor Mike Dunleavy ordered a criminal probe into Mary Peltola's campaign after reports of a spoiler candidate, but the move undermines the court's ruling on ballot access.
Governor Mike Dunleavy and the Trump administration are wrong. They are attempting to use the criminal justice system to override a judicial decision. In a state governed by the rule of law, the executive branch does not get to relitigate a court order simply because a newspaper report creates a political opening. The Alaska Supreme Court already spoke on the legality of the ballot. To reopen the matter via a criminal probe is not an act of oversight. It is an act of desperation.
The court already decided the ballot
On Wednesday, October 28, 2026, Governor Mike Dunleavy directed the Department of Public Safety to investigate the Mary Peltola campaign, as reported by CNN and the BBC. He wants to know if criminal charges or civil penalties are warranted. This order followed a report from the New York Times about the recruitment of a "spoiler" candidate. The report alleges that the Peltola campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) worked to recruit Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. to run against the incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan.
The record shows this is a redundant exercise. The Alaska Supreme Court already rejected Republican efforts to remove Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. from the ballot. The court found nothing illegal about his bid. Under Alaska law, he qualified for the ballot and advanced to the general election.
Alaska election officials confirmed to CNN that the New York Times report does not change the state's position. They noted that placing candidates on the ballot is a matter of state law. The Division of Elections is bound by the court's order. When a court rules that a candidate is legally on the ballot, the Governor's office cannot use a police investigation to wish that ruling away.
The danger of the spoiler tool
We must be clear about the reported "ballot composition project." The New York Times cited text messages to describe a plan to dilute support for the incumbent. If the Peltola campaign and the DSCC did this, they engaged in a cynical piece of tradecraft. They sought to win not by persuasion, but by confusion.
This is the mechanism of the Election of 1912, where a spoiler candidate was used to split the vote of a primary opponent. It mirrors the 2014 United States Senate elections, where candidates were recruited to split the opposition's base. This is a dangerous tool for any party to sharpen. A rule that only works while your side holds the advantage is not a rule; it is a gamble.
The Peltola campaign is playing a game that will eventually be played against them. They are treating the ballot as a puzzle to be manipulated rather than a record of voter intent. The August primary results show the effect of this strategy. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. took 2.5 percent of the vote.
While the recruitment of a name-alike is an ethical failure, it is not a legal one. The Alaska Supreme Court already determined that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. met the statutory requirements. To call this "election fraud," as Donald Trump has done, is to confuse a lack of sportsmanship with a violation of the law.
The threat to certification
The more urgent crisis is not the Governor's probe, but the Department of Justice's lawsuit. The Trump administration has filed a case to block the certification of the election if the incumbent loses. They argue that the presence of two Sullivans on the ballot creates too much confusion to allow a result to stand.
This is a ghost of the 2020 United States presidential election, where legal challenges sought to block the certification of results based on claims of fraud. It is a direct assault on the process of governance. The Department of Justice is attempting to preemptively invalidate the will of Alaska voters before the first general election ballot is even cast.
A district judge has already expressed skepticism of this strategy. She is right to do so. If the federal government can block certification because it dislikes the composition of a state-approved ballot, then no election result is secure. The legitimacy of the court is a capital stock that spends fast and refills slowly. Using the DOJ to protect a specific candidate's seat is a fast way to spend that capital.
The DSCC and the Peltola campaign deny any involvement with Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. Whether they are lying or not is a matter for the voters. It is not a matter for the police or the federal courts. The process for removing a candidate from a ballot exists, and the Republicans used it. They lost in court. The proper response to a legal loss is to campaign harder, not to launch a criminal investigation.
The Alaska Department of Public Safety will likely conclude its investigation without filing criminal charges. Recruiting a candidate who shares a name with an opponent does not cross the threshold of statutory fraud under Alaska law. Similarly, the federal district court will likely dismiss the DOJ's lawsuit. Federal intervention in state certification violates the core principles of state sovereignty. The probe is a political theater piece, and the lawsuit is a legal overreach. Both attempt to solve a political problem with a prosecutorial tool. The result will be the same: the court's original order must stand, and the voters must decide.
Sources
- CNN: Live updates: Alaska governor orders investigation into Peltola campaign after bombshell report
- BBC: Alaska governor orders probe into Democratic campaign's alleged links to rival candidate
- The Washington Post: Report on recruiting a ‘spoiler’ shakes up Senate race in Alaska
- ABC News: Peltola campaign under fire after report it recruited 2nd Dan Sullivan in Senate race