As the fight for control of the United States Senate becomes increasingly competitive, eyes turn north to Alaska and a race that pits, among its contenders, Dan Sullivan against Dan Sullivan, and no, this is not a candidate living a double life or fighting demons within himself.
Confused?
That may be the point.
Daniel S. Sullivan is a two-term Republican senator from Alaska. He seeks re-election in November.
Daniel J. Sullivan is a retired school teacher and a political novice. He calls himself an independent Republican cut from the same fleece as the state's maverick Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski.
Political obstacles give Daniel J. Sullivan has little chance of winning the highly competitive race. So is there any other reason you're running? Is his presence on the ballot intended to draw enough bewildered voters away from the incumbent to elect his Democratic rival, former Rep. Mary Peltola?
That's what Republicans think. And you don't have to be standing on the banks of the Kenai River to smell something fishy.
When Daniel J. Sullivan launched his campaign in May, he did so as plain and simple “Dan Sullivan,” with a website much like the incumbent's. The press release announcing her candidacy was written by one “Amber Lee.” There is an Alaska political strategist named Amber Lee who has supported Peltola in the past.
(For such a sparsely populated state, there are surely a lot of doubles in this political saga.)
Election officials say Daniel J. Sullivan asked to appear on the ballot as a Republican, even though he had not previously been affiliated with the party. In fact, over the years he had contributed money to Democrats, including Peltola. He also asked to be identified on the ballot as “Dan Yes. Sullivan” before changing his mind, a lawyer for the state told the Alaska Supreme Court, which took up the matter late last month.
“That's not an innocent mistake or a random mistake,” Chris Murray told the judges. “There are many other letters in the alphabet that could have been a typo.”
Political consultant Amber Lee declined to comment when contacted by the Anchorage Daily News. She did not respond to an email from her friendly political columnist.
For his part, Daniel J. Sullivan denied any malice or malicious intent.
“This is my choice,” he told the Associated Press. He said he had no contact with the Peltola campaign (“zero, none, nothing”) and denied that anyone from the state Democratic Party or any national Democratic operative had contacted him about running.
Peltola's campaign has strongly denied any involvement. So have the Alaska Democratic Party and the national Democratic Senate campaign committee.
After an investigation, Daniel J. Sullivan was removed from the August 18 primary ballot. Carol Beecher, head of the Alaska Division of Elections, said his candidacy was intended to “confuse or mislead” voters.
Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) attends meetings at the US Capitol in 2025.
(Francis Chung / Politico via Associated Press)
But the state's high court overturned that decision and ordered election officials to find a way to keep Daniel J. Sullivan's name on the ballot “within the limits of Alaska's existing ballot design law.”
It's been nearly 20 years since the state sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate, but this election appears to offer the party its best opportunity in years, thanks to Peltola.
Jessica Taylor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report called her “the ideal recruit,” given Peltola's fundraising prowess and her ability to outperform other Democrats while avoiding the toxic stain of the national party. (Peltola's slogan – “Fish, Family and Freedom” – is about as far from the Whole Foods-shopping, Prius-driving Democrat image as possible.)
Democrats need to gain four seats in November to take control of the Senate, from a menu that includes Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, while holding onto contested Senate seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. The Cook Political Report rates Alaska as one of the few contested races in the group.
The state has a ranked-choice system in which the top four vote-getters advance to November. Ivan Moore, who conducts nonpartisan polling in Alaska, said that system virtually guarantees that Sullivan and Sullivan will face each other in a runoff that includes Peltola. At that point, Moore suggested, the choice will be clear to most voters.
Under the solution devised by state election officials, the senator will be listed as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and as “incumbent (registered Republican).” His challenger will be identified as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” without party affiliation.
“I imagine there are some people who don't know what the word 'incumbent' means,” Moore said. “But I find it quite difficult to believe that people who are determined to vote for Dan S. Sullivan, the senator, would go to the voting booth and vote for the wrong person when Dan S. has the word 'incumbent' next to his name and Dan J. has no partisan affiliation.”
Political shenanigans are nothing new. But the level of partisan gaming appears to be growing as the old saying that all are fair in love and war is increasingly applied to campaigns and elections.
It was something of a novelty in 2002 when Democrats interfered in the California Republican primary to promote their preferred candidate. It is now common practice.
Redistricting, or the redrawing of the nation's congressional lines to reflect changes in the population, used to occur once a decade after the national census. But, spurred by President Trump, last year saw an arms race among states, including California, that gerrymandered their political maps to boost a preferred party and essentially decide House elections before a single ballot was cast.
Politics, another old saying goes, is not a poof.
But it doesn't have to be so biased and cynical. There is no need for fishy-smelling candidates like Daniel J. Sullivan.
