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?‘
In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s there was a political leader in Baltimore named James H. “Jack” Pollack. He controlled 2 of Baltimore’s 6 districts, the 4th and 5th districts. If his hand picked candidate was under water, he would run a “names the same” candidate against the opponent. It often worked in his favor. There was another candidate who changed his name because the candidates were listed alphabetically. His name was changed from Rennie Marks to Rennie Marks Aabach. It was not successful since he lost.
Ahhh! Politics. That which is old is new again.
May well be that this thwarted attempt of subterfuge was encouraged by Schmuck E. Schmoozer, Hack Em JeFreeze, and little Dicky Dirtybonbon to name a few…
Doubt they will ever be charged, much less identified… thanks to the money of Boy Georgie Sorceress 😉
For Millhouse, Olly, and John Say.
6 AAC 25.212(b): A candidate’s name will not appear on a ballot(1) with a designation of any academic, professional, personal, or honorary degree or title held by a candidate; or(2) in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.
The regulation dictates how a name appears on a ballot (“Appearance of candidate’s name”), not whether a properly qualified candidate can be banned from running.
Nowhere in that statute does it say the director can remove a candidate because a name is confusing. None.
If a candidate’s requested name formatting is confusing (such as trying to use a misleading nickname or an unearned title like “Doctor”), the legal remedy under this rule is for the Director to adjust the format or print their legal name.
The rule does not grant the nuclear option of decertifying an otherwise legally qualified candidate from the election entirely.
John Say has it partly right, but ends up contradicting himself halfway through his explanations.
Anonymous – You are citing a single part of a single statute as if it – and your interpretation is the entirety of the law.
Other statues have been cited that allow a candidates removal.
Another poster noted that in Florida a Republican went to jail for EXACTLY this conduct.
FL law may be different that AK law – but SCOTUS has been extremely coinsistent – the ONLY individual qualifications for Federal Office are those in the US constitution.
Thjere is little doubt this is a political dirty trick. There is no doubt that it is immoral and unethical. Others here have cited other AK law indicating that it is also illegal conduct.
But in the end the Constitution Trumps AL law. A different Dan Suillivan has the right to run for federal office in AK – regardless of AK law.
The court – state or federal is free to require that the names on the ballot as clearly as possible distinguish the candidate. But they can not remove a candidate.
Further – while you cited a specific AL law – even absent that law or other AL election law – that does not limit the court – in this instance only the US constitution provides a limit.
I am not sure whether this case was brought using AK or whether it is a tort claim – you CAN make a TORT claim based on political dirty tricks – and Courts can craft remedies specific to the damage of the Tort – but even Tort remedies can not violate the constitution.
To understand this -assume that we are not in the context of an election and the “other Dan Sullivan” is seeking to trade or get credit or in some other way deliberately benefit by confusing people into beleiving he is a famous Dan Sullivan – that is a Tort – and courts can address it and craft remedies.
One of the massive problems with those on the left is that they completely forget that Tort law exists. The left CONSTANTLY assumes that all bad conduct that does not have some statutory prohibition – can be done without consequences. That is absolutely FALSE.
Torts are why no government regulation of pretty much any kind is necessary. If you engage in a bad act and that bad act causes Actual harm to another – they can file a tort claim against you. They do not need to prove you violated a law. They need to prove that you bad acts caused actual harm – it is often not even necessary to prove the bad act was intentional.
C’mon Turley this isn’t new.
Here in Chicago… Madigan did this a couple of times to take candidates out.
Then Pritzker’s PAC paid money to advertise a weaker GOP candidate for Gov. just to win in the main election.
Yet another attempt for one party to rig the election in their favor.
It would have been criminal had this not been disallowed.
-G
The RCV system itsels is seriously flawed. That is not an opinion,
but an assessment.
SEE:
MY PINNED TWEET ON X (aka TWITTER)
John Howard Wilhelm, Ph.D., Economics Univ. of MI @JohnHowardWilh1 Nov 24, 2023
The problem with RCV is the algorithm used to determine a winner.
See the first video from the first
link http://www.nationalrenewal.org/node/36 –It shouldn’t take more than 20
also nationalrenewal.org/node/47–minutes to examine these 2
and for more detail http://www.nationalrenewal.org/node/46
AND:
John Howard Wilhelm, Ph.D., Economics Univ. of MI @JohnHowardWilh1 – 2-13-26
In my exchanges of voting systems my conclusions are often labeled opinions
not assessments The latter are logical conclusions based on valid evidence &
data The former are intuitions at best or prejudices about reality at worse.
@elonmusk @DavidSacks @jimmy_dore @BretWeinstein
Compare to First Past the Post: Candidate 1 has 36% of the vote, the other two split the remaining 64% and lose. So 64% of the voters didn’t want Candidate 1, but are stuck with him.
With RCV it is likely that most voters for Candidate 1 will refuse to vote for anyone else while those for the other two will vote for both, in some order. The result is that the most unpopular candidate does not win.
For example, what Republican would put down Kamala Harris as their second choice? There would be no requirement to rank all of the candidates.
There is never going to be a voting system that does not have some oddity. The primary value in RCV is that supporters can register their vote for some candidate they know has no shot to indicate support and encourage them to try again, possibly with better results after seeing the initial results. A person might want to vote for the Green Party but, as a fallback, would vote Democrat.
That is bulldust. Preferential voting guarantees that an absolute majority of voters prefer the winner to any other available candidate. When it gets down to the last two standing, more than 50% prefer the winner to the runner-up. And every voter gets to participate in that decision, so there’s no need to worry about “wasting your vote”. When it comes down to the last two, everyone’s vote counts equally, no matter how many non-viable candidates they preferred to either of those two. The people they would have preferred are not available, it’s down to a binary choice, and they all get to make that choice. That is the ONLY just way to do it. Anything else is unfair and unjust.
Please do not use words like unfair and unjust with respect to personal preferences.
You have made you pitch for RCV – many people agree with you. Many do not.
Regardless it is not a matter of fairness or justice. It is a preference.
It has advantages, it has disadvantages.
Only a few states have chosen it – and I do not think any more are looking to move towards it.
I would bet Alaska will get rid of it.
But it is their state – they can do as they please.
I have expressed my Preferences regarding elections – that is what they are preferences.
There are only a FEW things that are more than preferences.
Mailin Voting is a scheme that can not ever be secured against Fraud.
The entire reason that 38 states have secret ballot amendments i because – though not by mail we had all the other bad attributes of mailin voting in the 1800’s and they worked horribly – fraud was rampant.
Many of us bleive we have significant mailin fraud already – but even if we do not – the longer we continue this experiment and the more frequently it occurs with close elections the more likely we are to see massive fraud.
It is inevitable
Beyond that – whatever our election laws – they MUST be enforced.
People can not trust a government that will not enforce election laws.
If the las are a problem – change the laws.
Do not just ignore them.
Separately the best model we have for making choices – is the free market.
The closer you can make elections to choices in the free market the better.
SOME people do write or think out their choices – rank them and then decide.
MOST people say “I am hungry” – they drive by McDonalds and say yes – or no, then Wendy’s and eventually one option appeals to them.
We do not put massive thought into most choices – But we DO pay for those choices which DOES assure that we make better decisions.