By SUZANNE DOWNING
June 18, 2026 – A newly released legal memorandum from the Alaska Legislature’s Division of Legal and Research Services concludes that Daniel J. Sullivan — the Petersburg resident dubbed “Decoy Dan” — meets the constitutional qualifications to run for US Senate and that Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom likely lacked legal authority to reject his candidacy.
The Petersburg Sullivan is believed by many to be a trick to fool voters in August into voting for the wrong Dan Sullivan.
The five-page memo, dated June 17 and written by Legislative Counsel Andrew Dunmire in response to questions from Rep. Andrew Gray, directly challenges the legal rationale used by the Division of Elections when it removed Sullivan from the 2026 U.S. Senate ballot earlier this week.
The dispute stems from Sullivan’s filing to run as a Republican against incumbent US Sen. Dan Sullivan. The unusual candidacy drew national attention because both candidates would have appeared on the ballot as “Dan Sullivan.” Election officials ultimately concluded that Daniel J. Sullivan’s filing was intended to confuse voters and compromise the neutrality of the ballot. He even attempted to place himself on the ballot using the senator’s middle initial of S.
But Dunmire’s memo argues that the US Constitution establishes only three qualifications for serving in the Senate: age, citizenship, and residency in the state when elected.
“Based on media reports describing Daniel J. Sullivan, it appears that he meets these three qualifications and is therefore an eligible candidate for the U.S. Senate seat on the ballot in 2026,” Dunmire wrote.
The memo relies heavily on the US Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, which held that states may not add qualifications beyond those listed in the Constitution. According to the analysis, requiring a candidate to prove he filed “in good faith” would amount to imposing an additional qualification not found in the Constitution.
The legal opinion also questions whether the lieutenant governor or Division of Elections possesses authority to investigate a candidate’s motives for seeking office.
Dunmire notes that in the recent Eric Hafner congressional ballot case, the Division of Elections successfully argued in court that a candidate cannot be removed simply because election officials believe he is unlikely to qualify or serve. Hafner, a federal inmate incarcerated in New York at the time, remained eligible to appear on Alaska’s congressional ballot because he satisfied the constitutional requirements for office and certified that he intended to meet residency requirements before Election Day.
The memo argues that the state’s position in the Hafner case conflicts with its position in the Sullivan matter.
“Only candidates who lack one of the three constitutional qualifications can be denied access to the ballot,” Dunmire wrote.
Dunmire further concludes that he is unaware of any statute or regulation giving election officials authority to compel a candidate to answer questions about his motives under oath before appearing on the ballot.
The Division of Elections had cited concerns that Sullivan recently adopted the nickname “Dan,” changed his party registration to Republican, and used campaign materials that appeared designed to resemble those of the incumbent senator. Elections Director Carol Beecher determined that the “preponderance of the evidence” showed the filing was intended to mislead voters rather than to conduct a legitimate campaign.
However, the legislative legal memo argues that even if election officials were concerned about voter confusion, removing Sullivan entirely from the ballot was not the only available remedy.
Instead, Dunmire suggests the state could have crafted a ballot design that clearly distinguished between the two candidates.
“The division could comply with this regulation by crafting a more narrowly tailored solution,” the memo states. “It could, for example, design the ballot in a manner that allows voters to distinguish between the two candidates.”
“Consequently, for all the reasons discussed above, the Lieutenant Governor was likely not legally justified in her decision to reject Mr. Sullivan’s declaration of candidacy.”
Of course, the opinion is not binding on the Division of Elections or the courts. But it would provide kindling for a legal fire that is likely to break out over the Decoy Dan removal. The ballots are to be printed on June 28, and thus this story will continue to develop.
6 thoughts on “Democrats in Legislature challenge Election Division’s decision on Decoy Dan”
The Petersburg town fool may meet Constitutional muster, but for this:
….
His intent, at the last minute, is to try to fool the public. The AK Administrative Code, which is law, denies candidacy for people who use bad faith to confuse a candidacy question. Written implicitly in the Constitution…. everywhere…….is that good faith always be considered in the exercise of rights.
….
Here, any idiot would know that the Petersburg fool’s intent is to practice bad faith in his attempt to fool the public. The public is NOT fooled.
The real fool must be denied.
I beg to differ that Alaska voters can’t be fooled
Just look at who we supported and elected as community district leaders and managers
The importance of something as Decoy Dan J Sullivan is it shows Alaskans do not do things correctly up here in Alaska
We are raised up here to accept cutting corners that we do not have Firm boundaries to keep events like this happening
Apparently Legislative Counsel Andrew Dunmire is not familiar with the section of the Constitution directly after the Article I, Section 3, clause 3 that states “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. was NOT removed feom the ballot due to being too young, or being a citizen for less than nine years, or not being an Alaskan.
Article I, Section 4
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” This gives the states the ability to enact laws governing elections, and SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed, that states are entrusted with writing laws and rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, vote counting, and determination of election results. DOE cites the statutes in the final determination letter for the reason Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. was removed from the ballot.
Furthermore in a strikingly similar case of Samuel Ronan from Ohio SCOTUS has recently refused to intervene…https://courthousenews.com/supreme-court-keeps-former-dnc-candidate-off-ohio-gop-primary-ballot/
I wish Legislative Counsel Andrew Dunmire, Rep. Andrew Gray, and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. the best of luck with their lawsuit…of course only one of them hss standing to sue.
There is no limit on the Democrat’s will to cheat, lie, and deceive when it comes to elections. Their view of democracy is that subverting honesty in order to gain power is part of the Democratic process.
Why are the dIMOCRAPs in the legislature so upset? Decoy Dan is a Republican, right? Sophomores, Whale dung. Idiots.
Speaking from some experience, a member of a majority caucus or party in the Legislature – and particularly if the member is a Leftist – can get the Legislative attorneys to say almost anything. Additionally, and as noted, the views expressed are entirely gratuitous.