There is an interesting controversy in Alaska where an election official just disqualified a candidate over his name. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) is in what is considered a close race with Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola. The seat is viewed as critical to the Democrats’ retaking power. The race was thrown into disarray when a retired teacher named Dan Sullivan, who had no connection to the GOP but did have connections to Democratic operatives, got on the ballot. The alleged dirty trick by Democratic and Peltola supporters would have split Sullivan’s vote through sheer confusion. Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualified Dan J. Sullivan, putting an end to it this week.
The suspected dirty trick comes at a time when Democratic candidates and pundits are calling for winning back power “by any means necessary.”
It could create an interesting appeal if teacher Sullivan claims that this is just a colossal coincidence or that he has a right to be a vehicle for electoral confusion.
This is an old trick employed by other Democratic candidates in history, including J.F. Kennedy. In Kennedy’s first run for Congress in 1946 in Boston, he was up against Boston City Councilor Joe Russo in the primary. The district was heavily Irish and Italian. Kennedy’s father, Joe, allegedly paid another Joseph Russo, a custodian, to run to divide the Italian vote through confusion.
In 2000, Republicans faced similar allegations when the House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt found himself running against Richard A. Gebhardt.
Beecher concluded that Dan J. Sullivan and the Democrats were engaged in the same dirty trick to try to seize the seat. In a letter this week, she concluded that the teacher’s candidacy was “filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality,” in a letter published Monday.
Under Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system, Dan J. Sullivan could have advanced to the general election among the top four vote-getters — rigging the result for Peltola.
Beecher noted several indicators that teacher Sullivan and the Democrats were engaged in a dishonest campaign of confusion. She noted that he voted under the name Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., but requested to appear on the ballot as Dan Sullivan—making him identical to the incumbent. He even tried to register using the initial “S” once, which would have matched the senator.
She also noted that Dan J. Sullivan had not registered as a Republican before launching his Senate campaign and that he created a new website that used a “color scheme and overall theme” similar to the incumbent’s campaign materials.
She also noted his connection to Amber Lee, an Alaska Democratic consultant and past supporter of Peltola.
If true, it is a disgraceful role played by this retired teacher and Democratic operatives. While claiming to be defending democracy, Democratic activists and leaders often use the most anti-democratic measures of ballot cleansing or, in this case, ballot confusion.
The question is the role of Peltola, the DNC, and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee in encouraging this dirty trick in Alaska. That would require an inquisitive, independent national media.
Once again, from Alaska to Maine, Democrats may have to ask, “Are we the baddies?‘
Abolish the Democrat Party, “by any means necessary.”
2 Civil Wars are 2 too many
If you don’t want people to have political freedom, then you are the fascist.
the Democrats are a dirty trick
You can’t name a “good” person Democrat. They all hate America and want to destroy western Society!
What would it be like if Western society was destroyed?
How would it be managed?
I am guessing that you though you were asking a stumper ?
You weren’t.
by the sweat of thy brow thou shall eat thy daily bread
Genesis 3:19
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
Stephen Crane
These are reflections of fundamental and immutable facts of nature
The success of western society rests on understanding and incorporating them.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
is Utopian sounding pablum from the left that is at odds with nature and to the extent it is attempted slows destroys or even reverses human progress.
Core to the west and western society is that your life is your own. That no one else is obligated to give you what you need,
That you are responsible for your own life – not anyone else.
This is also core to REALITY.
No attempt byh the left to get around that has EVER worked.
Communists and socialists constantly claim they failed because they had the wrong leaders.
The fail to grasp that their ideology attracts like rotting meat attracts maggots exactly the leaders who will turn their utopian dreams into a totalitarian nightmare.
It is not an accident that socialism always fails and that the individual free will at the root of the west always succeeds.
It is not an accident that socialism fails ever more the more deeply it is complimented.
And that free markets work even poorly implemented and work better the freerer they are.
So how would you manage to destroy western society ?
Convince everyone they are victims and owed a living.
Convince everyone that everything wrong with their life is someone else’s fault – not their own.
“Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves”
Shakespeare – Julius Ceasar
“Clean up your bedroom. Take care of your family. Follow your conscience. Straighten up your life. Find something productive and interesting to do and commit to it. When you can do all that, find a bigger problem and try to solve that if you dare.”
Take responsibility for your own life before trying to change the world.
Jordan Peterson.
“he can’t even run his own life
I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine, sunshine”
Johnathan Edwards
How do you manage to destroy western society ?
Do all the things those of you on the left are constantly trying to do.
So a guy running for office under his own name is too much of a dirty trick for Turley. But an attempted coup, racist gerrymandered maps, lying about election fraud in order to put in place nonsense voter suppression laws, and using the US mail to refuse to deliver ballots is all totally ok by Turley.
The “racist gerrymandering maps” of which you speak have been ended by a correct decision of the Supreme Court.
The “attempted coup” of which you speak was Obama, Biden and Hilary and the Russian fake collusion.
The lying about election fraud of which you speak was Hilary and Stacy Abrams.
The new maps ensure the racists win.
Alaska’s ranked choice system opens the way for this kind of dirty trick that might not be as successful in other states. Only 4 can advance to the general election. And yes, it is a dirty trick because Dan J Sullivan did everything possible to confuse himself with the incumbent.
And yes, it is a dirty trick that has worked elsewhere. Republicans have done it too.
It’s not ranked choice that limits it to four. That’s a separate decision that Alaska made. Ranked choice eliminates the need for such a thing.
What’s more, the primary to eliminate all but the top four does not use ranked choice! It should; if there must be such an elimination, it should be by ranked choice so that people who support minor candidates can safely vote for them, without having to worry about wasting their vote. Eliminate candidates one at a time, redistributing their votes accordingly, until you’re down to four. If you feel some irrational need to limit the length of the final ballot in November.
Duplicated name candidates have occurred in non-ranked choice elections. In any close race a spoiler candidate can tip the balance.
Which is all BS, Sally.
Your credibility is shot based on the continued pulling the race card, calling the riot of 1/6 a coup (no one was ever charged with insurrection) and other misrepresentation in your posts.
Still repeating the same old lies?
… Sally… PLEASE seek help for your TDS! Your Completely Delusional Upside Down Out of Context Twisted Backwards Fake News View of Reality is leading you towards a Woke Stroke!
Ooh planning a little excursion are we Mr Hilter?
You won’t have much fun in Stalingrad.
To brain-dead Democrats, “by any means necessary” has come to include — and is ratified through repetition — intimidation, violence and even assassination. And these are the zombie automatons we want to govern a free people in a constitutional republic? Seriously?
Another example of Turley acting like Democrats do something Republicans haven’t done. Here are some examples of Republicans doing it, not to mention the current redistricting war and attacks on minority seats held by Democrats.
1. Florida (2012): “Charles R. Smith” vs. “Charlie Smith”
Race: Florida House District 87
Target: Democrat Charlie Smith
Tactic: A Republican‑aligned political consultant recruited Charles R. Smith, a man with the same name, to run as a write‑in candidate.
What happened
Republican operatives recruited a man named Charles R. Smith to run as a write‑in.
The goal was to confuse voters who intended to vote for Democrat Charlie Smith.
The scheme was exposed in court filings and investigative reporting.
The consultant involved later admitted to similar tactics in other races.
This is one of the most blatant modern examples of name‑confusion as a deliberate electoral tactic.
2. Michigan (2020): “Robert Davis” vs. “Robert Davis”
Race: Wayne County Commission
Target: Democrat Robert Davis (a well‑known activist)
Tactic: A Republican‑connected operative recruited a different “Robert Davis” to run.
What happened
A second man named Robert Davis filed to run in the same Democratic primary.
Investigations by the Detroit Free Press and Michigan Advance found that Republican‑aligned consultants were involved in recruiting the second Davis.
The goal was to split votes among people who recognized the name but not the candidate.
The scheme was referred to prosecutors, though no charges were filed.
This case is often cited in election‑law discussions as a textbook example of “name‑cloning.”
BONUS: A third case you may want to know
3. Tennessee (2024): “Stephen Smith” vs. “Steve Smith”
Race: Tennessee House District 2
Target: Democrat Stephen Smith
Tactic: A Republican‑aligned group supported an independent candidate named Steve Smith.
This one is less blatant than the Florida case, but it was widely reported as a deliberate attempt to siphon votes from the Democrat.
I don’t mind Turley bringing to light the Alaska case. It’s his disingenuous suggestion that Democrats are guilty of things Republicans would never do.
Hey dumb a$$! Turley did mention the GOP has done it in the past. And he never suggested anything. That is YOU just reading into something NOT there! Wonder why people dislike Dumbercrats? Just read your comment!
Dumbercrats doing it again does not make it better!
“Once again, from Alaska to Maine, Democrats may have to ask, “Are we the baddies?‘”
They don’t have to ask for what they already know to be true.
Anonymous, you should re-read enigma’s post. He made no such claim that Turley didn’t mention the GOP has also done it. He only said the GOP also does this and provided examples.
If enigma were agreeing with Prof T, then why bother commenting about it? What point does she make with her comment, and what do the examples add to the picture? We already know that both parties do this regularly; all that makes this case different is that state law provides a remedy for it that most states don’t.
“ It could create an interesting appeal if teacher Sullivan claims that this is just a colossal coincidence or that he has a right to be a vehicle for electoral confusion.”
No. This would make for an easy appeal. Because the state has on its books an easy solution to the problem that the election official completely ignored. Instead he chose to do the most extreme thing, disqualification, based on a hunch. Not evidence.
The Democrats do not need working members of Congress to develop bills, sit on committees, and lead in policy. What they need are obedient voting members. So, it seems natural that winning by trickery should not be surprising.
This time they are set back. But they will try again – and again. BTW, Graham Platner is another example. This big tough guy is also obedient. In truth, he resembles a wimpy Bernie bro.
The Democrats have only one real leader – Bernie Sanders. The rest of them are just creatures of their vast political machine. Kamala Harris made this clear when she said that she wouldn’t have done anything different from Biden.
The only real leader on the GOP side is Donald Trump.
The Democrats have only one real leader – Bernie Sanders.
________________________________
Leader???????? LOL.
All he does is complain about the rich, yet he owns what 3 homes.
He’s so darn lazy, the was kicked out of a hippies camp.
Yeah some leader.
This has actually been reported in several right of center news reports over the past 1-2 weeks. Also of note, was the fact that the filing of this shadow Republican was a virtually at the last second that the filing deadline had to be met. Interesting about the stories of JFK and his family mechanitions.
Democrats cheat. They always have and always will. That’s why they fight so hard against any effort to secure elections.
In that regard, Democrats are not unlike the ayatollahs in Iran.
On this record, I am happy Beecher pulled him. This does not look like a real race. It looks like a trick to strip votes off the real Sullivan. But once the state starts pulling names off ballots, I want to know the rules. Not a hunch. Not “this guy bothers me.” There should be clear eligibility rules, solid proof that the whole point was to confuse voters, written reasons any normal person can read, and a quick appeal to a judge before the ink dries. I like that this scammer is gone. I do not like handing any bureaucrat a blank check to decide who is “too confusing” for the public to see.
Whether it “looked” like it was a dirty trick or not the disqualification is illegal. Professor Turley did not claim the name issue was illegal or disqualifying. He cited no laws saying so. The only rationale was the elections official ‘assuming’ the intent. That’s not a thing.
There is no law dictating that a private citizen loses their fundamental right to run for office under their own name simply because an incumbent shares that name.
If the legitimate concern was strictly voter confusion on a ranked-choice ballot, the state had less restrictive, non-disqualifying administrative remedies available. The Division of Elections could have easily printed both candidates’ full middle names on the ballot (“Dan S. Sullivan” vs. “Dan J. Sullivan”). Included their professions, cities of residence (e.g., “Petersburg” vs. “Anchorage”), or status as the incumbent next to their names.
Whether it was truly a dirty trick or not it does not make it illegal or disqualifying if the election official is only assuming without any concrete evidence. This is politics and it’s often a dirty cutthroat competition. Any advantage is exploited and this one seems to be legit because it’s not really a disqualifying issue. As I pointed out, there are legal remedies available. Disqualification is reserved for truly egregious conduct or dirty tricks that violate the law.
FYI, there ARE clear eligibility rules.
Alaska’s election procedures directly anticipate the reality of common or duplicate names on a ballot, providing standard layout adjustments to prevent voter confusion without necessitating a candidate’s disqualification.
When multiple candidates share a name, state administrative procedures mandate that the ballot explicitly distinguish them using middle initials or full middle names. In this specific race, the incumbent was officially listed as Dan S. Sullivan, and the challenger was originally certified to appear as Dan J. Sullivan.
To eliminate confusion, Alaska ballot formatting guidelines allow the state to print the word “Incumbent” directly next to the sitting official’s name. This acts as an immediate visual cue for voters.
It is obvious there were less restrictive solutions. The real dirty trick seems to be the disqualification based on an assumption, not evidence.
Dan J Sullivan, or the people backing him can go to court if they think it was illegal. The primary isn’t until Aug 18.
OLLY,
To me, I thought Ms. Beecher did as her office allowed. She saw the evidence before her. She connected the dots as one would in a investigation. And then she made a logical, reasoned decision, as allowed by her office.
She is the informed citizen we need more of.
Upstate, I am with you on Beecher on this set of facts. She followed the paper, looked at the name games, the copycat branding, the political ties, and used the authority her office gives her to keep a rigged candidacy off the ballot. That is exactly what an honest, informed official ought to do when someone tries to turn the ballot itself into a con. Where my antenna go up is not on Beecher, it is on the rule.
If we are going to trust people in her chair with the power to erase a real person from the ballot, we need more than “connecting dots.” We need a clear standard, hard evidence that the whole point was to confuse voters, a written record any citizen can read, and a quick appeal to a judge before the ballots are printed.
Beecher looks like the rare grown‑up who used that power to protect the voters this time. My worry is what happens when the next person in that office is not as informed or as honest, but still has the same eraser in their hand.
Beecher went beyond her authority.
The fundamental flaw is that no section of Alaska election law explicitly gives her the power to conduct a subjective investigation into a candidate’s hidden psychological motives or “good faith”.
State law restricts an election official’s role to strictly objective, ministerial checks. Did the candidate pay the fee? Are they registered to vote? Do they meet the minimum age and residency requirements?
Dan J. Sullivan, met all these explicit statutory criteria. Even the ACLU of Alaska, has noted that there is no historical precedent in the state for an election director expanding their administrative powers to police a candidate’s political intent or alliances.
Under state procedures, a disqualified candidate has a 30-day window to appeal an administrative de-certification to the Alaska Superior Court.
It’s more likely the disqualified candidate will succeed in court.
You are framing this as a “psychological motives” inquiry, but the statute actually requires the candidate to swear that the filing is an “actual good-faith candidacy.” That is not hidden psychology. It is a sworn certification on the record. Beecher did not dig into thoughts. She looked at objective facts. The identical name, the attempted “S” middle initial, the copycat website, and the Democratic consultant ties. From those facts, she inferred intent to confuse under the good-faith standard in the filing itself.
You say the law restricts her to ministerial checks, but the declaration-of-candidacy statute includes that good-faith requirement. The review is not purely about fee, age, and residency. If the legislature meant to ban intent-based disqualification, it would have written the statute differently.
That does not make her decision unchallengeable. The real issue is whether the record and the standard are clear enough to survive court review. The candidate has 30 days to appeal, and the court will decide whether Beecher overstepped or properly applied the statute. But the argument that she had no authority to consider intent is weaker than you are making it, because the filing itself contains the good-faith test.
Beecher exceeded her ministerial authority by conducting an investigation into subjective intent rather than accepting the candidate’s sworn declaration.
The statue does not require to swear the filing is “an actual good-faith candidacy”
Here’s the actual statute,
Sec. 15.25.030. Declaration of candidacy.
(a) Candidates for primary or special primary elections must file a declaration of candidacy under oath, including:
Name, mailing address, and residence address (with residency date).
Office sought and district (for legislative seats).
Party affiliation or preferred designation.
Dates of candidacy, residency duration, and age verification for the specific office.
Official request for ballot placement, required fee, and affirmation of no other candidacy.
Specific ballot name preference and joint candidate names (Governor/Lt. Governor).
(b) & (c) Candidates must also file a statement of income sources and business interests, or a disclosure statement, in compliance with AS 39.50 or AS 24.60, unless an exemption applies for incumbents.
“ Beecher did not dig into thoughts.”.
Yes, she did, here’s her actual words on the record,
“ A declaration of candidacy filed for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot is not properly filed as required by Alaska Statute 15.25.060.”
Sec. 15.25.060. Preparation and distribution of ballots.The primary election ballot shall be prepared and provided by the director for each election district. The director shall place on the primary election ballot the name of each candidate who has properly filed a declaration of candidacy for elective state executive and state and national legislative offices. The director shall pass upon the qualifications of candidates as provided in AS 15.25.042.
She relied on the word “properly” to justify her allegation. It’s not based on fact, but pure speculation that there is some malicious intent.
The statute does not define “properly filed” as a subjective test of political intent or good faith. Statutorily, “properly filed” historically means a candidate turned the paperwork in before the deadline, paid the fee, and completed the items required in AS 15.25.030.
This is why if the candidate chooses to challenge the disqualification he has a very high likelihood he will succeed in court.
FYI the filing does not have a “good-faith test”.
You are right that AS 15.25.030 does not say “good-faith candidacy,” but you are wrong that Beecher had no authority to look at purpose.
She relied on AS 15.25.060 and the word “properly filed.” That statute says the director shall place on the ballot the name of each candidate who has “properly filed” and shall pass upon qualifications. In election law, “properly filed” means compliance with the statute as a whole, not just pages and fee.
The rule that controls is 6 AAC 25.212. It says a name may not appear on a ballot if it is “confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.” That gives the director authority to decide whether the name is confusing, and it allows direct court review. That is the framework Beecher used.
She did not dig into thoughts. She looked at objective facts: identical name, attempted “S” middle initial, copycat website, and ties to a Democratic consultant. From those facts, she concluded the filing was “filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead.” That is intent from conduct, not peeking into hidden psychology.
So the real issue is not whether the filing crossed the line on form. It is whether Beecher’s inference was supported by enough evidence. If it was, the candidate loses. If it was not, the candidate wins. But you cannot say she had no authority to look at purpose, because 6 AAC 25.212 gives her that authority and AS 15.25.060 gives her the “properly filed” hook.
“ “properly filed” means compliance with the statute as a whole, not just pages and fee.‘
That is correct. But you keep leaving out what the statute explicitly says is compliance. You incorrectly assumed it had a “good-faith candidacy” swearing. You were already assuming a lot of things based on that incorrect assumption.
“ She relied on AS 15.25.060 and the word “properly filed.” That statute says the director shall place on the ballot the name of each candidate who has “properly filed” and shall pass upon qualifications.”
Again that is correct.
Statutorily, “properly filed” historically means a candidate turned the paperwork in before the deadline, paid the fee, and completed the items required in AS 15.25.030. It does not imply anything else.
6 AAC 25.212 controls the framework and expands the director’s power. However, an administrative regulation passed by an executive branch agency cannot override or expand the strict eligibility parameters set by the legislature. Under Alaska law, qualifications are determined strictly by AS 15.25.042 (which checks age, residency, and voter status). An administrative rule regarding ballot aesthetics cannot be transformed into a substantive vehicle to strip a citizen of their constitutional right to run for office under their own legal name.
6 AAC 25.212 Governs “Appearance,” Not Eligibility.
6 AAC 25.212 is titled “Appearance of candidate’s name on the ballot”. It is designed to dictate formatting—such as banning academic titles (e.g., “Dr.”) or ensuring a candidate’s nickname is a name they are commonly known by in the community.
Subsection (b)(2) forbids a name appearing in a manner that is confusing, misleading, or compromises fairness. The legal and historical remedy for a confusing name style is modifying how the name is printed (e.g., forcing the inclusion of a full middle name or appending “Incumbent”). It is not a license to completely disqualify the candidate from the election entirely.
“Properly Filed” Does Not Mean “Investigating Intent.” You assert that “properly filed” under AS 15.25.060 means compliance with a subjective “good-faith” standard. We both already recognized that is not true.
In election law, “properly filed” is a ministerial standard meaning the paperwork was completely filled out, signed under oath, accompanied by the statutory fee, and submitted before the hard deadline. The director’s job is to verify that the forms are complete—not to look at circumstantial factors like a website’s color theme or political consulting ties to independently “infer” a fraudulent psychological intent.
You’re under the wrong impression that Beecher has the authority to investigate. She does not. No statute cites this authority. You have not cited any specific statute granting her the ability to investigate these allegations.
As noted above there is already a legal remedy to clear any confusion that avoids disqualification. The Alaska Supreme Court has historically held that election laws must be construed in favor of candidate eligibility and voter choice.
Her choice to outright disqualify the candidate without using the less drastic remedy allowed by law puts Beecher in to a legally untenable position. Thus making a challenge by the candidate much more likely to succeed in court if he challenges the disqualification.
John Francis Kennedy was the Treasurer of Massachusetts from 1955 to 1961. Kennedy jumped to that job directly from working as a supervisor in the miscellaneous small parts stockroom for Gillette. The 1960 Massachusetts primary included six John Kennedys seeking various office. John Kennedy, the then State Treasurer noted above, sought the office of governor. In real sneaky but failed moves on both parts, John B. Kennedy of Saugus and John M. Kennedy of Boston both sought the office of state treasurer being vacated by John Francis Kennedy. John Kennedy of Braintree sought the office of Norfolk county commissioner. Two John Kennedys (from Everett and Plymouth) both sought seats in the Massachusetts State House. Another John Kennedy had won the Massachusetts presidential primary held earlier in 1960
There are a lot of Irish descendants among the M@ssh0le$, and a ton of experience in dirty politics as well. I will refrain from speculating whether there might be some kind of cause and effect relationship between those two observations.
Yes, if the D’s had such great platforms and ideas they would not have to pay people to rally for them or cheat people to get their votes.
So much free elections…
JT, to avoid confusion at the outset of your essay, you might insert the middle initial “J” at the first mention of the teacher’s name.
“That would require an inquisitive, independent national media.”
Sorry. That hasn’t existed for decades now.
“How Democrats Steal Elections in 4 Mins”
What’s the matter can’t formulate or articulate a relevant comment so you use a video to make a point. But not yours.
Folks, proof positive that rightists are uneducated.
Thank God his eternal kingdom, which will rule 100% of earth(Daniel 2:44). The USA was predicted to be the final “divided” kingdom when God’s kingdom begins ruling as predicted in 100% accurate prophecy. Each metallic body segment= world power that still existed when the next rose to unipolarity:(1) Gold head-Babylon;(2) silver chest-Persia;(3) bronze belly/thighs-Greco-Roman;(4) iron legs-UK, which trampled earth becoming largest empire in history controlling 24% of earth;(5) iron/clay feet-USA, military strong, weak ruling with 500k+ elected/appointed officials on local, state,& federal levels rule this “divided” kingdom with its (v43) melting pot of people do not stick together now(Daniel 2:31-44). Prophecy was in the scroll sealed until the time of the end when knowledge was predicted to increase(12:4).
Jihad so early in the day?
TY, Prof. Turley for catching this! Why am I not surprised! What a great woman of Integrity & Courage Carol Beecher is to step in the line of fire to stop the sniper’s bullet!!!
Democrats have no policies the majority of voters favor and lie about their policies because they are so bad, so cheating is all they have. This isn’t the first time that the Democrats have tried to run someone with the same name to split the vote. Kudos to Alaska for not allowing this foolishness.
Pretty stupid and ignorant comments for 5:46AM. But stupid has no time frame eh?
Well, you are here being stupid yet again.