Judge Gleason rightly protects secret ballots from the DOJ
By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta ·
The Department of Justice tried to segregate ballots in the Alaska Senate race to stop a loss, but Judge Sharon Gleason rightly prioritized the secret ballot over political grievances.
The Trump administration is wrong to treat the Department of Justice as a campaign tool for the Republican Party. By filing a lawsuit to block the certification of the Alaska Senate election, the executive branch attempted to trade the constitutional right of the secret ballot for a political victory. The request was not a search for truth. It was an attempt to commandeer state election machinery to save a seat.
The assault on the secret ballot
The lawsuit, filed on October 22, sought to separate and preserve ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan. The Department of Justice argued that this candidate, a retired schoolteacher, was a "frivolous" decoy. They claimed he was recruited by Democrats to confuse voters and steer them away from the incumbent, Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan.
As CNBC reports, the DOJ wanted to postpone the certification of the results if Senator Dan Sullivan lost. This would happen if he lost by fewer votes than the other Daniel J. Sullivan. The government requested an investigation into voter intent. This would have required federal law enforcement to identify and question the people who cast those specific ballots.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason saw the request for what it was. She wrote that requiring the segregation of ballots so voters could be investigated by law enforcement "clearly violate Alaskans’ right to a secret ballot." She noted that the government provided no plan to conduct this investigation while maintaining voter secrecy.
The Purcell principle and state power
Judge Gleason did not just protect the voter. She protected the process. She dismissed the case on procedural grounds, ruling that the federal government lacked legal standing to postpone the certification. She noted that the "time, place, and manner" of the election are the responsibilities of the State of Alaska, not the federal executive branch.
In her ruling, Judge Gleason cited the Purcell principle. This is a Supreme Court doctrine that "strongly cautions" courts against altering election rules immediately before an election. The mechanism is simple: courts decline to change the rules on the eve of a vote to avoid creating more confusion for the citizen.
This is the same mechanism used in Purcell v. Gonzalez, where the court refused to disrupt voting procedures to prevent voter chaos. The Trump administration tried to use the court to create the very confusion the Purcell principle is meant to prevent.
The game of the two Sullivans
The facts of the race are messy. The New York Times reported that aides for Democratic nominee Mary Peltola and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee helped recruit Daniel J. Sullivan to run. If true, this is a cynical ploy. It is the kind of political theater that erodes trust in the booth.
The DOJ spokesperson argued that "Decoy Dan" entered the race to rig outcomes. Senator Dan Sullivan told CNN the effort was "rigged and corrupt." However, the record shows that Alaska election ballots list the incumbent as "Dan S. Sullivan" and mark him as the "incumbent" and "registered Republican." The other candidate is listed simply as "Daniel J. Sullivan."
The Peltola campaign told NBC News that no "sham investigation" would stop Alaskans from voting on November 3rd. While the recruitment of a spoiler candidate is a low blow, the DOJ's remedy was a knockout punch to the secret ballot. A rule that allows the federal government to investigate voters because they were confused by a name is not a rule. It is a weapon.
The Department of Justice has filed a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit. They claim the court did not dispute that Daniel J. Sullivan was a frivolous candidate. That is irrelevant. The court's job is not to decide if a candidate is frivolous. Its job is to ensure the process is legal. The federal executive has no authority to seize state ballots to conduct a fishing expedition into the minds of voters. The 9th Circuit will likely affirm this dismissal because the executive branch cannot disrupt state certification without statutory authorization. The secret ballot is a capital stock of legitimacy that the Trump administration is trying to spend for a single Senate seat.