Alaska asks judge to dismiss DOJ election lawsuit — but acting attorney general’s name is absent

By SUZANNE DOWNING

Oct. 26, 2026 – Alaska’s election officials have asked a federal judge to throw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit over the two-Sullivan Senate race, arguing that the Justice Department has no legal basis to delay certification over alleged voter confusion.

But the Oct. 26 filing raises a question of its own: Why does the state’s response in a nationally consequential confrontation with the Justice Department carry the name of a Civil Division director rather than Acting Attorney General Cori Mills?

The 20-page motion is headed by Rachel Witty, Civil Division director, and electronically signed by Margaret Paton Walsh, with Laura Fox also listed as counsel. The certificate of service identifies Paton Walsh as a chief assistant attorney general.

Mills, whom the Department of Law identifies as Alaska’s acting attorney general, is absent from the motion’s signature block.

The filing provides no explanation. Its signature block shows no evidence that Mills either reviewed or approved the arguments. Nevertheless, the question deserves an answer in litigation involving Alaska’s election administration and an intervention publicly backed by President Donald Trump.

The motion represents election officials operating within the election system overseen by Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom.

The case concerns incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., the Petersburg candidate widely called “Decoy Dan.”

As The Alaska Story previously reported, the Justice Department seeks a conditional certification delay: If the incumbent loses and votes for the other Sullivan could have changed the outcome, federal attorneys want an investigation into whether voter confusion affected the result. The lawsuit itself does not halt certification, as candidate Mary Peltola has alleged; a court order would be required.

Alaska’s motion asks for dismissal with prejudice, arguing that the federal complaint fails on three principal grounds: standing, the absence of an enforceable statutory claim, and the Constitution’s allocation of election authority.

Its central statutory argument is that the National Voter Registration Act governs voter registration. The state argues that it does not regulate similar candidate names, ballot design or certification.

Federal attorneys rely on the act’s stated purpose of protecting electoral integrity, together with its enforcement provision. Alaska counters that a statement of legislative purpose does not create an independent obligation covering any potential election dispute.

The state also argues that election officials have already distinguished the two Sullivans in five ways: different middle initials; “Jr.” on the Petersburg candidate’s name; “Dan” versus “Daniel”; differing party information; and the word “Incumbent” beside the sitting senator’s name.

But that last safeguard raises a question the motion does not address.

As The Alaska Story reported in its examination of translated sample ballots, “Incumbent” remained in English on all 21 translated general-election samples reviewed, even where surrounding text was translated.

Those samples included Alaska Native languages and Tagalog.

That could become one of DOJ’s strongest factual responses to the state’s assurances about ballot clarity: A designation identifying the sitting senator is useful only if voters understand it.

Different initials remain on the ballot. The untranslated word “incumbent” gives federal attorneys a concrete issue to examine beyond the mere existence of two similar names.

Alaska’s attorneys offer additional answers for uncertain voters: Ask for assistance, consult an election pamphlet or smartphone, or rank both Sullivans.

Under the state’s example, if a voter’s first-choice Sullivan is eliminated, the ballot would transfer to the other Sullivan ranked next.

That describes how such a ballot could be marked, but overlooks a voter who mistakenly believes he has identified the senator will recognize a need to seek help or rank the other candidate.

The state nevertheless argues that DOJ has not alleged sufficient facts showing large numbers of confused voters. That’s because the election has not yet occurred.

The motion also recalls that the Division of Elections initially excluded Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. because of concerns about an intent to confuse voters. State courts ordered his inclusion, leaving election officials to distinguish the candidates within existing ballot-design law.

Another substantial part of Alaska’s defense concerns the proposed investigation itself.

The state argues that determining which voters selected Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and then questioning them about their intentions would violate ballot secrecy. It’s a tough nut to crack.

Todd Blanche has offered a different explanation publicly. As The Alaska Story reported after his CNN interview, he suggested that patterns in ranked-choice ballots could provide evidence of confusion. Whether such patterns could reliably establish mistaken intent will have to wait until after the election.

The controversy has already drawn opposition from Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Murkowski maintains that Alaska has sufficiently distinguished the candidates.

‘Oh, stop it!’: DOJ’s Todd Blanche snaps at CNN’s Dana Bash over Jan. 6 comparison in Alaska election dispute

Murkowski opposes DOJ election lawsuit, and Bernie Sanders agrees

Breaking: DOJ sues Alaska over ‘Decoy Dan,’ seeks certification delay if voter confusion tips Senate race