This political stunt is very clever. Very sneaky. Very underhanded. And – though it is all those things – very legal, it seems to me.
Dan Sullivan is the Republican Senator from Alaska.
Dan Sullivan – a different person with the same name – is an alleged “independent” running for the senate in Alaska; one who, it turns out, was actively sought out and recruited by the campaign of Democrat candidate Mary Peltola.
The idea is that, if enough people are confused by the fact that there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot, and vote for the “independent” rather than the incumbent, it could push Democrat Peltola over the top and give her the senate seat.
How do I know this was a set-up by the Pelolta campaign? My source, believe it or not, is the Republican-hating New York Times.
Powerlineblog.com’s Scott Johnson has an excellent article about this, in which he quotes from the Times’ article (which is on a paywall and I have no access to). So, with thanks to Mr. Johnson, here is the key part of what The Times published:
In the summer of 2025, a staffer for Mary Peltola, the Alaska Democrat who was eyeing a run for Senate, received unusual instructions from top campaign aides: Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can.
The staffer complied, combing through voter records to produce a list of Dan Sullivans from across the state.
This was no random request. Dan S. Sullivan is the name of the state’s Republican senator. And if the Peltola campaign or its allies could track down and persuade another Dan Sullivan to run for Senate, the confusion could cost the senator crucial votes on the state’s unusual, four-person ballot.
The plan worked. This spring, a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by air and sea, announced his candidacy for Senate. His name was Dan J. Sullivan.
The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.
Is this a classic example of underhanded snakery, designed to fool voters and get them to hurt, rather than help, their candidate of choice? You bet it is.
But is it overtly illegal? I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see the illegality here. Every voter who wants to vote for the Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan, but who inadvertently votes for the Democrat-helping Dan Sullivan instead, has had the choice of both. Though the opportunity for them to make a mistake was created by the Pelolta campaign, it still is their mistake and no one else’s.
I compliment the New York Times for breaking what has become their usual pattern by noting, and reporting candidly on, the dirty tricks of a Democrat’s campaign.
And I hope enough Sullivan-supporting Alaskans who would have been tricked by this ruse but now are wise to it- along with voters who would have supported Pelolta but now will not do so because of it – will make them pay for it on election day.
