Judge to rule Friday on ‘Decoy Dan’ ballot appeal court hearing

By SUZANNE DOWNING

June 25, 2026 – Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews peppered state attorneys with questions during Thursday morning’s hearing over whether Democrat-backed “Decoy Dan” Sullivan should be restored to Alaska’s Aug. 18 primary ballot, while asking comparatively fewer questions of attorneys representing the Petersburg candidate.

The hearing itself was difficult for many Alaskans to follow because the Alaska Court System’s livestream failed for much of the proceedings, leaving members of the public unable to hear significant portions of the oral arguments in a case with statewide political implications.

Judge Matthews said he expects to issue his decision by 4:30 pm Friday.

At issue is whether the Alaska Division of Elections correctly removed Daniel J. Sullivan of Petersburg from the ballot after concluding he was not a bona fide Republican candidate, but instead had entered the race to confuse voters and siphon votes from incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan.

Throughout the hearing, Matthews repeatedly pressed the state’s attorney on whether Alaska had ever confronted a similar case.

Has this ever been contemplated before, the judge asked in various forms, probing whether there was any precedent for removing a candidate under these circumstances.

The state’s attorney acknowledged that no prior case quite matched the facts before the court.

One exchange centered on former congressional candidate Eric Hafner, a convicted felon who previously appeared on Alaska’s ballot for US House despite questions about his eligibility under federal law, since he’s serving in a federal prison in New York.

Attorneys for Decoy Dan Sullivan argued that Hafner had been allowed to run, suggesting the state should likewise permit Sullivan to remain on the ballot.

The state’s attorney distinguished the two situations, explaining that Hafner’s candidacy was never formally challenged.

That prompted Matthews to ask whether the state only acts when someone challenges a candidate.

The attorney responded that no determination had been necessary because no one requested one.

It didn’t rise to the level of having to make a decision, the attorney explained. No one asked for a decision.

Oral arguments set for Thursday in Decoy Dan ballot case

The discussion then shifted to an unusual Louisiana case involving perennial candidate Luther Devine “L.D.” Knox, who legally changed his name in 1979 to include “None of the Above” in an effort to place that phrase on the ballot for governor.

Knox was initially allowed to qualify for the race, but Louisiana courts ultimately ruled that election officials could refuse to print “None of the Above” on the general election ballot because it would mislead voters. The courts found the name violated state election laws prohibiting deceptive ballot designations.

Division of Elections files response to fake Republican Decoy Dan’s challenge to ballot decision

Judge Matthews also posed a hypothetical involving Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson’s predecessor, Dan A. Sullivan.

Suppose, the judge asked, that Dan A. Sullivan, the former Anchorage mayor, were running as a Republican for U.S. Senate. Would that present the same problem?

The state’s attorney answered no, explaining that a legitimate candidate who happened to share a similar name would be treated differently than someone whom the Division of Elections concluded had entered the race for fraudulent purposes.

“If you’re not a fraudulent candidate,” was the essence of the state’s distinction.

Another significant development came when Matthews denied the Alaska Republican Party’s request to intervene as a formal party in the case.

Instead, the party was allowed to participate only as amicus curiae, or friend of the court. Matthews said he would explain his reasoning for denying intervention in his written order. The Republican Party has indicated it intends to appeal that ruling.

Also participating as amicus was Dustin Darden, another U.S. Senate candidate.

At one point during the hearing, Darden politely asked, “Can I address the court?”

Matthews responded cordially but declined the request, reminding Darden that while he had been allowed to submit arguments as an amicus, he was not actually a party to the case.

The hearing concluded without an immediate ruling.

The ruling could determine whether Decoy Dan remains off Alaska’s primary ballot or is restored as a candidate in one of the state’s most closely watched election disputes.