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.
22 thoughts on “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”
The Alaska Supreme Court will bray” sure! You can have it!its only taxpayer money hee haw!
Examine the detailed billing. Look for double billing. Look for fraud in the billing statements. Look for two or three attorneys billing for duplicate or triplicate billing time on same issues and matters. These are tricks attorneys use when asking for attorney fees. Then, file multiple complaints to the Bar Association against each attorney involved in the appeal. These bastards will probably charge for practice time in front of a mirror.
Robinson billed 32 hours over a day and a half? Doubtful. I suppose you could count thinking about it before falling asleep, but I doubt any lawyer who bills $700/hr works those kind of hours. And in what world does the State pay the bills?
I’ve seen some that have billed for 26 hours on one give day. Call out fraud and mail them cash in monopoly bills.
Can you imagine the arrogance of believing that your abilities and services are worth $700/ hour? That’s $12 per minute.
Supply and demand. Apparently this lawyer was good enough to convince leftists justices to rule against democracy, the rule of law, the US Constitution, prior SCOTUS rulings, and common sense. So, apparently in this case, you get what you pay for…or what some(unknown)one else pays for.
If you want the best attorney or more skilled you pay more. Divorcees know the difference makes from hiring the best attorney when the ex husband has an estate, so the ex wife doesn’t go through what all other single mothers go through without child support from the dad. The attorney will take his fees out of her settlement or alimony
Wrong, Tina. An attorney cannot take fees from divorce settlements. Unethical and subject to bar discipline. The attorney must bill at their hourly rate.
I’m an attorney.
Insane. The charges and also expecting the state to pay.
Gawd! The author is really, really stretching the narrative here! This guy may be trying to game the system, BUT his legal name is DAN SULLIVAN! Give it up already. You are starting to look childish.
It’s not Dan J Sullivan who’s see a dollar of that 43,000. His attorneys are seeking what they come to the conclusion belongs to themselves for their labor. The attorneys are they had a winning case that can’t be appealed to the US Supreme Court just as they see they have a winning case to collect compensation for their labor. Law firms need money like any other business.
The Div of elections was too hasty and too quick to had declared the candidate not worthy. Considering they and Alaska does not have a history of following the letter of the law and doing everything correctly.
So for the lay person don’t look always to sue because it’s not you who’ll get the compensation. It’s your attorney who’ll take it all for their labor. I grew up always hearing about GenXers, Millennials threatening to sue all the time just because they think to get free money. Stupid. When settlements go to pay for the attorney if the plaintiff had a case the attorney knew he could win.
Suzanne says: “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.”
Its not only the federal campaign financed law violated by Decoy Dan and his merry leftist legal team. It is Alaska election law via accurate reporting of in-kind campaign contributions (time spent by his legal team). APOC should have a field day with this one. Cheers –
The State lost the case, that should have never happened. He has a legal right to have his fees paid. Try doing the right thing for once.
Crocodile tears! For the benefit of non-Alaskan readers, Alaska is unique among the states in requiring that losers in civil litigation pay the attorneys fees of prevailing parties. We know is as Civil Rule 82 and the State of Alaska is not exempted. In this respect Rule 82 should operate as a deterrent to the practice of lawfare by the state against its citizens. And that is indeed the case here. It was brought by the state against a citizen entirely for the protection of a favored political candidate who happens to have been born with a similar name. That does not disqualify an individual from filing against an incumbent, so one can characterized the so-called decoy’s win as a victory for textualism. A bedrock principle of the conservative legal movement. I have no views on the FEC compliance implications other than to note that the litigant was not in fact a candidate at the time as his candidacy was rejected by the State of Alaska. And for all I know the representation was undertaken on contingency. with an agreement that recovered Rule 82 fees would inure to the law firm. I am supporting Senator Sullivan’s re-election, but I also support the rule of law. The Lt Governor and the Department of Law should be at the very least, embarrassed to have been talked into advancing this borderline frivolous cause. The better question is who talked them into it.,
Have you been a part of the conservative movement long? When was the last time we saw anyone take responsibility for, or be held accountable for, a bad idea???
45 years this December. The funny thing is that California solved this very problem decades ago by requiring that the occupation of a candidate appear below the candidate’s name on the ballot. And in full blown prescriptive California fashion, it also has specific rules to ensure that the designation is truthful. If the State of Alaska cared so much about avoiding confusion it might have brought the legislature back for a day or two to consider whether to model Cal. Elections Code 13107. That would clearly allow the Lt Governor to print the words Incumbent or United States Senator below the incumbent Dan Sullivan’s name. Might be a good idea to do so now.
Here is the thing, Nate. If Petersburg Dan had simply run as the “undeclared/democrat” he is and with an original web presences, that would have been honest and transparent and we all would not be here. Instead he demanded to be listed as Daniel S Sullivan with an (R)…..
I had to chuckle, “….calling the legislature back for a day or two” to deal with this, now that’s funny. Anyone who has been around this state even a little while knows that issues like election reform take forever with much bickering and posturing. Besides the legislature is already in special session and the call does not include election issues. The sample ballot at the Division of Elections website lists Senator Sullivan as “incumbent” and republican while it does not give a party affiliation for Petersburg Dan.
I thought one might chuckle about my proposed solution to the problem. So may I offer this rebuttal. I think Senator Dan will win and so-called Decoy Dan will go down in Alaska political history as just another goofy footnote in Alaska’s bushrat political history. Alaska political history also suggests that the victors have very long memories. Ted Stevens comes to mind. Senator Dan shares these genetics and his organization is chock full of people who cut their teeth on Ted’s campaign. Alaska legislators who might choose to block a truth in candidacy election law change could reasonsbly expect to be looking in the rear view mirror at that short sighted decision for a long time. Granted some wont care — but the smart ones will.
In addition to paying for a whole department of state lawyers, Gov Dunleavy’s team had a contract for 150k(?) to outside lawyers (the Jan 6th defense attorney guy who lost the argument defending Dahlstrom’s move) on the other side of this case.
So illegally removing Dan S from the ballot is going to cost the state what, $200k in legal expenses alone (and counting)? With apparently ~1/4th the expense being all it took the Decoy team to wipe the floor with the State in two rounds at court.
What “standing tall” for fiscal conservatism and respect for constitutional law REALLY looks like.
:/
“So illegally removing Dan S from the ballot ……”
Nobody is removing Daniel “S” Sullivan from the ballot (he is the incumbent). However you have ably demonstrated the Division of Election’s point that it causes confusion and disenfranchises the voters!
Couldn’t agree more — I would love to see Legislative Audit look at the State’s return on investment on Outside counsel. Particularly Outside counsel from Outside who litigate on ideology. Plain and simple, Alaska should have discovered this hole in the boat like when Mayor Dan and Senator Dan might have conceivably competed in a primary and plugged it. To Steve-O’s comment, I read the WSJ op-ed suggesting there is a federal issue that could be considered by the US Supreme Court. I know one of the two authors and he is a good guy who knows how to stretch an argument. The federal courts are not likely to be as generous as the WSJ editorial page editors.
This might just be the final straw to drive an appeal to SCOTUS.