Breaking: Decoy Dan seeks $43,620 in attorney fees from State of Alaska after winning ballot lawsuit, but he appears to have broken election laws

By SUZANNE DOWNING

July 9, 2026 – Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., the Petersburg man whose challenge to the Division of Elections kept his name on Alaska’s US Senate ballot despite questions about his eligibility, is now asking Alaska taxpayers to pay more than $43,000 in attorney fees.

A motion filed with the Alaska Supreme Court requests $43,620 in legal fees incurred during the expedited appeal that overturned the Division of Elections’ decision to remove Decoy Dan Sullivan from the ballot.

The motion argues that Decoy Dan Sullivan was the prevailing party after the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the Division’s June 15 decision to disqualify his candidacy and therefore is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs under Alaska appellate rules and state law.

Attached billing records show attorneys at Ballard Spahr LLP billed a combined 74.2 hours over just four days, from June 26 through June 29, while preparing briefs and arguing the appeal before the Alaska Supreme Court.

The firm’s rates included:

• Jeffrey W. Robinson: $700 per hour
• Bryn R. Pallesen: $500 per hour
• Zoe A. Eisberg: $500 per hour

According to the billing records:

• Robinson billed 31.6 hours for $22,120.
• Pallesen billed 23.7 hours for $11,850.
• Eisberg billed 18.9 hours for $9,650.

The attorneys describe drafting appellate briefs, researching election law, preparing for oral argument, reviewing amicus filings, and participating in the Supreme Court hearing.

Document drop: Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.’s Motion for Attorney Fees

The motion says the legal team had roughly a day and a half to prepare Decoy Dan’s merits brief after the Division of Elections issued its final decision removing him from the ballot.

The dispute arose after Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom directed the Division of Elections to examine whether Decoy Dan met Alaska’s constitutional requirements. The Division ultimately determined that he did not qualify and removed him from certification.

Decoy Dan Sullivan appealed, and the Alaska Supreme Court ultimately concluded the Division lacked authority to make that determination administratively, allowing his name to remain on the ballot. The Court did not decide whether Sullivan actually satisfies the constitutional residency requirements for the US Senate.

The case attracted national attention because Sullivan shares the same name as incumbent US Sen. Dan Sullivan, and subsequent evidence that he is merely a decoy candidate intended to drain votes from the Real Dan Sullivan so that Mary Peltola can win in November. It’s a plan to confuse voters.

But wait, there’s more: The attorney fee request also raises a separate campaign finance question.

Federal campaign finance law requires candidates and committees to report contributions and expenditures above specified thresholds, including legal expenses connected to a federal campaign when they are campaign-related.

The Ballard Spahr invoices total more than $43,000, yet no corresponding expenditure or contribution of that amount appears to have been reported in Federal Election Commission filings associated with Sullivan’s campaign. Decoy Dan has not registered with the FED.

That raises unanswered questions, including:

• Who paid the Ballard Spahr legal bills?
• Were the services provided free of charge?
• If someone else paid the fees, were they reported as required under federal campaign finance law?
• If the State ultimately reimburses the fees, how will that affect campaign finance reporting?

The motion itself seeks to shift the entire legal bill to the State of Alaska as the prevailing-party fee award. The State will have an opportunity to oppose the request before the Alaska Supreme Court decides whether taxpayers should reimburse Sullivan’s attorneys.

As The Alaska Story has previously reported, Sullivan’s candidacy has been controversial from the outset. Public records showed he was an Undeclared voter, yet asked the Division to show him as a Republican, while past campaign contribution records reflected donations to Democratic candidates.