Day: November 2, 2026

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration that sought to block the state of Alaska from declaring a winner in the state’s U.S. Senate election.

In a 20-page order issued Sunday morning, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason said the federal government failed to explain how it has the authority to bring its lawsuit.

“Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction and the United States’ amended complaint must be dismissed,” Gleason wrote.

Less than two hours after Gleason’s judgment, the federal government said it would appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Legal experts had expected the result because the federal government’s arguments were legally questionable.

President Donald Trump said last week he ordered the filing of the case, which asked a judge to stop the state from declaring anyone but incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan the winner. 

Gleason is an appointee of President Barack Obama and the most senior federal judge in Alaska.

Polling averages indicate Democratic candidate Mary Peltola is slightly ahead of Sullivan in a race that could help determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the Senate.

A New York Times article on Wednesday said Democratic campaigners sought to recruit spoiler candidates in the race, including Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg. 

Dan J. Sullivan and Republican Gerald Heikes of Palmer are the third and fourth candidates in the four-person Senate race.

The Alaska Beacon has not independently verified the Times’ reporting.

Peltola denied personal involvement after the Times reporting indicated she was aware of the recruitment, which involved an intermediary. Since the Times published its article, the federal government and the state have announced criminal investigations but have not said what crime may have been committed or whom they are investigating.

Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy had been challenged earlier this year in state court, but the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in his favor. 

No way to preserve ballot secrecy, Gleason says

In written arguments filed since last week, attorneys representing the federal government had argued without evidence that Alaska voters might be confused by the presence of two candidates named Dan Sullivan and sought an order that would require the state to set aside all votes for Dan J. Sullivan, pending further investigation.

The state of Alaska, Peltola’s campaign, a national Democratic group and two nonpartisan voting organizations opposed that request. 

In written filings, they said the action requested by the federal government would not prove any possible confusion.

“No pattern of ballot markings will reveal any voter’s reason for voting for Daniel J., regardless of how the voter ranks the candidates on the ranked-choice ballot,” state attorneys wrote. “And the ballot markings will be the only evidence of voters’ intent. Ballots cannot be associated with voters to allow the state or federal government to follow up with Daniel J. voters about their true intentions. Like every state in the union, Alaska protects the secrecy of the ballot by law, and such an investigation would require violating that secrecy.”

In response, the federal government could not explain how it would keep Alaskans’ votes secret. 

“The absence of any explanation from the United States as to how its requested relief could redress its alleged injury while simultaneously maintaining the secrecy of the ballot is telling,” Gleason wrote. “Simply, the Court cannot grant the United States the relief it seeks because the United States has failed to establish the redressability prerequisite for Article III standing.”

Federal attorneys suggested the state could segregate votes for Dan J. Sullivan to allow the counting of others, “but requiring the segregation of ballots cast by voters for Daniel J. Sullivan so that these voters can be further investigated by law enforcement is not a remedy that this Court can or should order as it clearly (violates) Alaskans’ right to a secret ballot,” Gleason wrote.

Ordinarily, a plaintiff could amend a rejected legal complaint to show how it has standing, but in this case, Gleason said that would be unfair to Alaska because the election is so near.

Appeal is possible but may be moot

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which was named in the Times article as one of the organizations recruiting spoilers, had intervened in the lawsuit alongside the Peltola campaign and the state of Alaska.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for democracy and a clear message to Donald Trump and Senate Republicans: No one, no matter how powerful, can toss out free and fair elections just because they don’t like the result,” said DSCC executive director Devan Barber in an emailed statement.YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.SUPPORT

While the federal government has appealed Sunday’s decision to the 9th Circuit, action in that court may not take place until after Election Day. 

If incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan wins the election, or if Peltola wins by a margin that is larger than the number of votes received by Dan J. Sullivan, an appeal could be moot.

In addition, there is some indication that the 9th Circuit may be unwilling to overturn the rejection. On Oct. 26, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit rejected an emergency order filed by the federal government against California elections officials. A lower court had also dismissed the federal lawsuit against California.

In that ruling, one of the concurring judges wrote, “On balance, given the record and because Plaintiff has offered no workable plan of any kind as to how the remedy it seeks could be accomplished in practice without potential catastrophic consequences to California’s ongoing election, the equities between the parties and the public’s interest do not weigh in favor of granting the requested relief.”

Through Saturday, almost 15% of registered Alaska voters had already cast ballots for the general election. Turnout is expected to be near 50%, based on trends over the past two midterms. https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/30636856/embed?auto=1

Correction: A prior version of this article incorrectly attributed a quote from a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Oct. 26. The quote should have been attributed to one judge, not a three-judge panel in a ruling on an emergency order.