Division of Elections files response to fake Republican Decoy Dan’s challenge to ballot decision

By SUZANNE DOWNING

June 24, 2026 – Alaska’s Division of Elections has filed its answer to “Decoy Dan” Sullivan’s lawsuit, arguing that the Petersburg man was never removed from the US Senate ballot because of his qualifications, but because he deliberately sought to confuse voters.

In a forceful brief filed Wednesday in Anchorage Superior Court, state attorneys argue that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. filed his candidacy “for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters” and compromising the fairness of Alaska’s election ballot.

AK_Answer_Brief_FINAL

The filing marks the state’s first full response to Sullivan’s appeal of Division Director Carol Beecher’s June 15 determination that he should not appear on the Aug. 18 primary ballot.

The state says the issue before the court is straightforward:

Did Sullivan properly file as a candidate, or did he seek ballot access primarily to create voter confusion by sharing the same name as incumbent Republican US Sen. Dan Sullivan?

According to the brief, Sullivan submitted paperwork requesting that his name appear on the ballot exactly as “Sullivan, Dan” — identical to the way the incumbent senator appears. He also switched his voter registration to Republican immediately before filing.

The Division says matters became even more suspicious after Beecher asked how he wanted his name displayed on the ballot.

Rather than use his actual middle initial, J., Sullivan reportedly asked to appear as “Dan S. Sullivan, ” using the same middle initial as the incumbent senator. State attorneys call the request “bewildering.” The email trail showing this will come out in discovery.

The state also points to evidence gathered during the investigation, including Sullivan’s campaign website, which closely resembles Sen. Sullivan’s website in design and appearance. It further notes that the website contained material apparently created by a consultant connected to one of Sen. Sullivan’s Democratic opponents.

Perhaps the most significant claim in the brief is the state’s assertion that Sullivan is not actually disputing the Division’s factual findings.

“Tellingly,” state attorneys wrote, Sullivan “does not appeal the substance of the Division’s decision, which was based on clear evidence that he sought to access the ballot in a manner designed to sow confusion and to compromise the fairness and neutrality of the election.”

Instead, the state says Sullivan is arguing only that election officials lacked authority to stop him.

The Division’s filing goes further, comparing the case to decisions in other states where courts blocked candidates whose actions appeared designed to mislead voters.

State attorneys cite a 1930 Nebraska case in which a candidate with a similar name was denied ballot access after officials determined he was attempting to confuse voters. They also cite cases from Florida and Louisiana involving candidates who sought to manipulate ballot design or naming conventions to create voter misunderstanding.

The brief argues that Alaska election law requires the Division to prepare ballots that are fair, clear, and accurately reflect voter intent. Election officials are not required, the state says, to place candidates on the ballot when evidence shows they are attempting to exploit the election process itself.

The state also raises a procedural challenge, arguing Sullivan waited too long to file his appeal. Attorneys note that he was aware of concerns about his candidacy for weeks before filing suit on June 22, leaving only days before ballot printing deadlines.

Meanwhile, Decoy Dan is separately asking the court to prevent the Alaska Republican Party from intervening in the case, arguing the party lacks standing and should not be allowed to participate as a party to the appeal. The Republican Party was the organization that originally challenged Sullivan’s candidacy before the Division of Elections.

Taken together, the filings reveal a central dispute that now faces the court: Whether Alaska election officials have the authority to stop what they believe is an intentional effort to create voter confusion, or whether anyone who meets the constitutional qualifications for office must be allowed on the ballot regardless of motive.

With ballots scheduled for printing no later than June 30, the court is under pressure to issue a ruling quickly. The Division is asking for a decision in time for review by the Alaska Supreme Court if further appeals follow and the judge has promised a speedy decision. Readers may expect important decisions on this case to occur today, Thursday, and Friday.