The Justice Department's Alaska probe is executive overreach

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta ·

Federal grand jury subpoenas over an Alaska candidate recruitment scheme echo the Watergate scandal, turning the machinery of justice toward political adversaries to tilt an election.

The process of power and the temptation of the shortcut

We have lived through this before. The Watergate scandal showed an administration targeting political adversaries during a campaign. Today, the machinery of the Department of Justice is turned toward an election rival to settle scores. The details shift, but the method remains intact.

The Guardian reports that the Justice Department issued subpoenas over the Alaska Senate race. The inquiry concerns allegations that Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign collaborated with party operatives to place a same-name challenger on the ballot against Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. CNN notes that federal prosecutors issued more than 40 grand jury subpoenas and record preservation notices by the evening of October 28, 2026. The New York Times reported that the effort to recruit a second candidate named Dan Sullivan was led by Mary Peltola’s campaign.

The facts carry a familiar stench of sharp practice. A retired schoolteacher named Daniel J. Sullivan was recruited to enter the race to draw votes from the incumbent. The Alaska Supreme Court restored Daniel J. Sullivan to the ballot. It rejected efforts by Republican state officials to disqualify him, ruling that no state laws had been broken. Attorney Libby Bakalar stated by text: “Not a single illegal thing happened here.”

Yet the response from Washington went far beyond normal political outcry. Donald Trump ordered the Justice Department to file a lawsuit to block certification of the Senate election if Senator Dan Sullivan does not win. The department amended its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Anchorage. It incorporated the New York Times reporting, accusing the Peltola campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee of misleading the court.

Here we must test the shortcut against the day our opponents hold the tool. An incumbent administration cannot dispatch prosecutors just because a campaign recruited a candidate with a matching name. If it can, the next administration will do the exact same thing to your side tomorrow. The power to investigate candidate recruitment is the power to criminalize politics.

The limits of jurisdiction and the defense of the rule

Let us state the strongest opposing case for the government's intervention. Administration officials make their case through reports in Politico and CNBC. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and other leaders argue that campaigns and party committees misled a federal court about a ballot-packing scheme. They contend that this misrepresentation constitutes a fraud upon the judiciary demanding federal remedy under the Supremacy Clause. Attorney General Todd Blanche remarked on Fox News, “They are cheating, let's call it what it is.”

It is a forceful argument built on righteous indignation. But it collapses the moment it meets the statute books. Justin Levitt, a former Department of Justice official, questioned the basis of the probe. He told reporters: “I don’t know what they’re putting out subpoenas to investigate because I don’t know what federal violations are implicated that DoJ would have jurisdiction over.” Levitt added that the actions “sure makes it seem like the point of the investigation is to become the story.”

Convincing someone to run for office under their own legal name is hardball politics, not a federal felony. Rick Pildes, an election law expert at New York University, described the Justice Department's legal arguments as a “frivolous theory.” Ruth Greenwood of Harvard Law School noted that the non-incumbent Sullivan had a constitutional right to run.

When the Department of Justice acts as a campaign committee's legal arm, it spends capital that takes generations to refill. A rule that only works while your people hold power was never a rule at all.

The verdict on federal overreach

The long record of American elections shows that parties have long engaged in aggressive ballot maneuvering. A DSCC spokesperson noted that Republicans also have a history of backing third-party candidates. In past cycles, that included securing Alaska ballot spots for an Arizona resident and a prisoner with a New York address. Sharp practice is not a federal crime, and the cure for a crowded ballot is speech, not a grand jury subpoena.

Governor Mike Dunleavy directed the Alaska Department of Public Safety to investigate whether the scheme violated state laws. That state-level inquiry is where any local questions belong. But the federal escalation remains an abuse of executive power. It brings dozens of subpoenas, rushed indictment threats, and a lawsuit designed to halt certification. When the Justice Department becomes an arm of the campaign trail, the voting booth ceases to be the place where citizens decide outcomes.

The Justice Department must return to its statutory boundaries. The federal courts should dismiss this lawsuit, and politicians should leave the machinery of justice alone.

Sources

  1. The Guardian: DoJ reportedly issues subpoenas over same-name Alaska candidates
  2. CNN: Justice Department’s Dan Sullivan criminal probe accelerates after Alaska campaign revelations
  3. Politico: DOJ contends Democrats misled court on Alaska Senate race
  4. Alaska Public Media: Peltola campaign and national Dems recruited spoiler candidates, including Petersburg Sullivan, according to New York Times
  5. BBC: Alaska governor orders probe into Democratic campaign's alleged links to same-name candidate
  6. CNBC: DOJ escalates Alaska Senate lawsuit over dueling Sullivan candidacies