THE ALASKA STORY
Aug. 18, 2026 – The strange saga of Alaska’s two Dan Sullivans took a more serious turn Tuesday, with the US Department of Justice issuing grand jury subpoenas as part of its investigation into whether the lesser-known candidate entered the US Senate race to confuse voters.
This is what was foretold by The Alaska Story sources earlier — a federal investigation into the candidacy of Decoy Dan (Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.), the retired Petersburg schoolteacher whose name appears on the primary ballot alongside incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.
Reuters reported Tuesday that the subpoenas were issued as investigators examine whether Decoy Dan entered the race to mislead voters or divert support from the incumbent. Reuters attributed the information to a source familiar with the investigation and said NBC News first reported the subpoenas.
It is not known by The Alaska Story who received the subpoenas, what documents or testimony investigators are seeking, or which individuals may be targets of the investigation.
Daniel J. Sullivan has repeatedly denied that he entered the race as a decoy or as part of an effort to help Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola.
But the latest development confirms that the Justice Department investigation, first reported in early July, has moved beyond a preliminary review.
ABC News reported in July that federal investigators were examining potential wire fraud or a possible conspiracy to interfere with a fair election. The report said it remained unclear who, if anyone, might ultimately face charges.
The subpoenas became public on Alaska’s primary Election Day, after weeks of national attention surrounding the nearly identical names on the ballot.
The incumbent is Daniel Scott Sullivan, a two-term Republican senator first elected in 2014. The challenger is Daniel James Sullivan Jr., a retired elementary schoolteacher.
The Petersburg candidate stated he was a Republican, despite being registered as an Undeclared candidate and despite voting for Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris in the past three presidential elections, according to a New York Times report published this week. He also told the newspaper that he voted for Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2022 and Mary Peltola in 2024 and attended a “No Kings” protest against President Donald Trump this summer.
Those revelations added fuel to Republican allegations that his candidacy was designed to draw votes away from the incumbent senator.
Daniel J. Sullivan initially filed for office using “Dan Sullivan,” the same name commonly used by the senator, and at one point listed his middle initial as “S,” which he later described as an error. His campaign website also used a domain and presentation similar to those associated with the incumbent.
The Alaska Division of Elections opened an investigation into his candidacy in June after receiving complaints from Republican officials. Elections Director Carol Beecher ultimately determined that the filing had not been made in good faith and removed him from the ballot, concluding that the candidacy was intended to confuse or mislead voters.
Daniel J. Sullivan challenged that decision in court.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ordered him restored to the ballot, ruling that the Division of Elections had relied on a “good-faith” standard not found in the US Constitution or Alaska election statutes. The Alaska Supreme Court subsequently upheld the result and directed election officials to include him.
The court decisions addressed whether the state had legal authority to disqualify the candidate. They did not determine whether his candidacy was part of a coordinated political effort or whether any federal laws had been violated.
Republicans have alleged that Democrats recruited Daniel J. Sullivan to weaken the incumbent and improve Peltola’s prospects in November. The Peltola campaign has denied any involvement, and the state’s investigation said it found no evidence establishing coordination between the candidate and Democrats.
Daniel J. Sullivan has maintained that he is a legitimate candidate dissatisfied with the incumbent’s record and that he has every right to run under his own name.
Both Sullivans are competing in Alaska’s jungle-style primary. The four candidates receiving the most votes advance to the ranked-choice general election in November, regardless of party affiliation.
New York Times goes hunting for ‘Decoy Dan’ — and finds a Kamala Harris voter running as an Alaska Republican
3 thoughts on “Breaking: DOJ escalates ‘Decoy Dan’ investigation with grand jury subpoenas on Alaska primary day”
I would hope that US Senator Dan Sullivan would issue a strongly worded statement condemning this action. Could there be anything more Stalinist than subjecting a citizen who chooses to challenge an established incumbent with a federal investigation solely because the citizen has the same name as the incumbent. Full stop. May I remind our fellow readers that the last Alaskan subjected to federal prosecution in the midst of an election campaign was none other than Ted Stevens. Not only was the prosecution the product of a Republican administration but we now know that the prosecutors felt compelled to cheat to obtain a conviction before election day. A fact that did not come to light until after Ted, our beloved Senator for life, lost the election. It should make you blush that the person who cleared Ted’s name was the Obama AG Eric Holder. Not only is this inquiry frivolous. It is an exercise in harassment. Prosecution of candidates in mid campaign, solely because they chose to place their hat in the arena, is fundamentally wrong. Even more aggregious in this case where the legal theory itself is a product of testosterone driven imagination, possibly empowered by strong liquor. So this is conservatism, huh? Pull back the curtain and inhale what statism smells like.
Given the entire thing was a sabotage move to purposely confuse voters, I would completely disagree with you. There do need to be some standards. If you truly think this was just a case of an aspiring citizen who just coincidentally had the same name, well, I have one of those proverbial bridges to sell you. Alas though, I doubt it. Just another leftist crying sour grapes that their latest rues was found out. So sorry. Perhaps cultivate some ethics and morals.
A good faith standard need not be inscribed in statute, or in the Constitution. A good faith standard relies on common sense, practicability, and on ordinary interpretation, that being, anything that doesn’t pass the sniff test of good faith, then, must be bad faith. Any judge that rules otherwise, cannot be trusted in their own objectivity or common sense.
.
That said, maybe US Senator Dan S. Sullivan will urge President Trump to pardon Daniel J. Sullivan’s prison sentence.