By SUZANNE DOWNING
June 25, 2026 – The judge who will decide whether “Decoy Dan” Sullivan returns to Alaska’s US Senate ballot is no stranger to political controversy. Oral arguments in the case begin at 10 am Thursday.
Anchorage Superior Court Judge Thomas A. “Tom” Matthews, who was assigned to hear Petersburg Democratic operative Daniel J. Sullivan’s appeal of the Division of Elections decision removing him from the Aug. 18 primary ballot, has presided over some of Alaska’s most politically consequential cases in recent years, including the bitterly contested 2021-2022 redistricting litigation.
Matthews was appointed to the Superior Court in July 2018 by then-Gov. Bill Walker, an independent governor who frequently aligned with Democrats during his administration. He replaced Judge John Suddock and now serves as presiding judge for Alaska’s Third Judicial District.
Division of Elections files response to fake Republican Decoy Dan’s challenge to ballot decision
Before joining the bench, Matthews spent more than three decades as a civil trial attorney, practicing primarily plaintiff-side personal injury law. He co-founded the Anchorage law firm Matthews & Zahare, where he specialized in wrongful death, automobile accident, and other civil litigation. Earlier in his career he practiced with Bliss & Riordan.
A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, Matthews earned his bachelor’s degree there in 1981 before receiving his law degree from Northwestern School of Law at Lewis & Clark College in Portland in 1985, the same place that Gov. Walker got his undergraduate degree. He has practiced law in Alaska since that year.
Matthews became a central figure in one of Alaska’s most contentious political disputes after the 2020 Census, when he presided over multiple lawsuits challenging the Alaska Redistricting Board’s maps.
In February 2022, Matthews ruled that the board’s Republican-appointed majority had improperly paired portions of Eagle River with East Anchorage Senate districts, finding what he described as a “tacit understanding” among three Republican-appointed board members to produce a partisan advantage. He concluded that the pairing violated the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection guarantees and ordered revisions.
After the board submitted revised maps, Matthews again found in May 2022 that the Republican majority had acted with what he called “discriminatory intent” by creating Senate districts that he said favored Republican electoral outcomes. He ordered the board to adopt an alternative interim map for the 2022 elections.
The Alaska Supreme Court ultimately affirmed most of Matthews’ decisions, and the revised maps became the basis for Alaska’s current legislative districts.
His rulings drew sharp criticism from Republicans, who argued he had substituted his judgment for that of the constitutionally created Redistricting Board and had ventured into political territory by inferring partisan motives from board deliberations. Democrats praised the decisions.
Matthews has also presided over other politically sensitive cases, including challenges involving statewide ballot measures and election-related disputes.
Now, he will oversee another closely watched political case.
The appeal centers on Daniel J. Sullivan of Petersburg, dubbed “Decoy Dan” by critics, who is seeking to overturn the Division of Elections’ determination that he should not appear on the Republican primary ballot for US Senate. Elections Director Carol Beecher concluded that Sullivan’s candidacy amounted to an attempt to deceive voters because he shares the same name as incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan and even attempted to get on the ballot with the middle initial “S.”
The case is expected to move quickly because Alaska’s primary ballots must soon be finalized for printing.
Whatever Matthews decides, the case appears likely to be appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, meaning the judge’s ruling may become only the first chapter in another high-profile Alaska election dispute.
New records raise questions about Decoy Dan’s rationale for sudden Republican registration
Decoy Dan files appeal to regain place on ballot as his Democrat strategist flees the country
Dahlstrom pushes back on House subpoena, Democrats retreat and reschedule hearing in ‘Decoy Dan’ dispute
House subpoenas Alaska Elections director in ‘Decoy Dan’ controversy, demands volumes of records
Democrats in Legislature challenge Election Division’s decision on Decoy Dan
One thought on “Oral arguments set for Thursday in Decoy Dan ballot case”
But once again we come to the fundamentally flawed understanding of the constitution that most people and politicians and lawyers labor under. Whatever this liberal judge decides, IT IS NOT BINDING. It is advisory. The executive enforces, or may choose not to. And we all know who that is. If that sounds unfair and partisan, well, first of all, Dunleavy does NOT understand the proper constitutional hierarchy, so he won’t do anything. But suppose he did, and acted as a conservative? The squealing of “Partisanship!” would be heard from the Left. Ummm. And the JUDGE does not act with partisanship? And, while we are at it, we got into this mess because of RCV, which was illegally approved thanks to the judicial decision of 2020, which totally ignored the statute that limits citizen initiatives to ONE SUBJECT.