Wall Street Journal writers say ‘Decoy Dan’ case may draw federal civil rights investigation

By SUZANNE DOWNING

July 1, 2026 – Just one day after the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that Decoy Dan (Daniel J. Sullivan of Petersburg) may appear on the Aug. 18 primary ballot alongside incumbent US Sen. Dan Sullivan, two prominent election law experts are arguing that the controversy may not be over.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “Decoy Dan and Crimes Against Civil Rights,” Michael A. Fragoso and Sean Cooksey contend that while Alaska’s courts have resolved the ballot-access dispute, federal authorities could still examine whether the alleged effort to confuse voters violates federal civil rights law.

“The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state’s Division of Elections can’t keep Daniel J. Sullivan from appearing on the same ballot as Republican Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan,” the authors write. “Federal prosecutors have reason to suspect that this is a deceptive attempt to draw votes from the incumbent, in violation of civil-rights laws.”

Fragoso, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Cooksey, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, argue that the facts surrounding the candidacy distinguish it from other election-related speech cases. They point to Decoy Dan’s recent switch to the Republican Party despite previous Democratic donations, his initial request to appear on the ballot using the incumbent senator’s middle initial, similarities between his campaign branding and that of the incumbent, and his acknowledged work with a Democratic political consultant.

The column compares the Alaska situation to the federal prosecution of internet meme creator Douglass Mackey, who was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 241, the federal conspiracy-against-rights statute, over social media posts encouraging supporters of Hillary Clinton to “vote by text.” Although Mackey’s conviction was later overturned by the Second Circuit, the appeals court found prosecutors had failed to prove an actual conspiracy or that any voters had been deceived.

Fragoso and Cooksey argue that the Alaska case could present different facts.

They write that “the Democratic consultant’s involvement in Decoy Dan’s gambit suggests two or more people acting in concert to put a candidate on the ballot with the same name as the incumbent.” If investigators were able to show the effort was intended to deceive voters into casting ballots for the wrong candidate, they argue, it could satisfy elements that prosecutors failed to establish in the Mackey case.

The authors further contend that actual votes cast for the challenger because of voter confusion could themselves become evidence of a successful deception. So far, it’s known that Amber Lee, a Democrat strategist and campaign consultant from Anchorage, assisted in the launch of Decoy Dan’s candidacy. She has since fled the country.

Decoy Dan files appeal to regain place on ballot as his Democrat strategist flees the country

While acknowledging that election campaigns often involve hardball tactics protected by the First Amendment, Fragoso and Cooksey argue there is a constitutional line that cannot be crossed.

“It doesn’t protect efforts to deceive voters into casting ballots for the wrong candidate,” they conclude. “While they might have pulled one over on the Alaska judiciary, the instigators of this scheme may still have federal civil-rights laws to contend with.”

The entire column may be viewed at the Wall Street Journal.

Sample ballot distinguishes between Alaska’s two Dan Sullivans, labels incumbent, omits party for challenger