Man with same name as U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan eligible for Alaska primary ballot, judge rules

A man sharing the name and party affiliation of Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan has been deemed eligible to challenge the incumbent in the August primary, according to a ruling by Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews. This decision overturns an earlier disqualification by the Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, who had initially removed the challenger from the primary ballot.

The judge found that the division's decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan based on a lack of "good faith" was not supported by the Constitution, Alaska law, or the division's own regulations. Instead, Matthews stated, the decision relied on a "new, previously unstated, 'good faith' criteria." The state's Department of Law has indicated it will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, with Tuesday set as the deadline for a final decision to allow for ballot printing.

Attorneys for the challenger, Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, expect the appeal and are awaiting the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling. The controversy surrounding the two Dan Sullivans underscores the high stakes of the incumbent senator's reelection campaign. This Alaska race is considered one of a handful of highly competitive U.S. Senate contests expected this fall, and it is a seat Democrats are targeting in their efforts to regain Senate control.

Senator Sullivan and his allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have criticized the challenger's candidacy, suggesting it could confuse voters. Under Alaska's election system, the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, advance to the general election. The senator has accused his namesake of collaborating with Democrats and the campaign of his main opponent, former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, to sow confusion and aid Peltola's chances. Both Peltola's campaign and state Democrats have denied these allegations, as has the challenger.

“

Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, 'good faith' criteria.