The New York Times on Wednesday published a blockbuster story claiming that multiple former staffers on the campaign of Alaska Democratic Senatorial nominee Mary Peltola implicated her and others in the effort to confuse voters with decoy “Dan Sullivan” candidates. Peltola has long denied knowledge or involvement, but the Times reported that she was allegedly aware of the effort that also involved campaign officials, its lawyers and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Rounding out the array of “usual suspects” is the Marc Elias Group. Elias was involved in the Russian hoax and has been previously sanctioned in court. The Times reported that Peltola’s campaign manager told it that “Alaskan voters need to know.”

Democrats like Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) immediately ran out to do damage control and depict Rio as a “disgruntled former employee.” The problem is that it is not just Rio. The Times referenced multiple campaign workers and brought receipts.

The Times names Democratic operative Jerid Kurtz, who allegedly worked with and communicated with Rios and others on the campaign, including Anton McParland, who at the time was Ms. Peltola’s chief of staff. It also states that campaign lawyers were involved in this despicable dirty trick to get voters to cast mistaken ballots.

The Times reported that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chaired by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), was aware of and involved in the effort. The effort was allegedly called  “a ballot composition” project and Kurtz was allegedly paid through a pro-Peltola fund.

The Times details the effort to conceal it. For example, the paper reports:

The Peltola aides worried at times that Mr. Kurtz’s efforts would be discovered, such as when he posted an image of the Anchorage airport on his Instagram account.

“I am hearing that our friend in the state is being noticed,” Mr. McParland wrote in a text message in January reviewed by The Times. Andrew Piatt, the D.S.C.C.’s director of campaigns, replied: “We will check in.”

Peltola refused to address specifics in response to the story. She attacked the liberal New York Times for just trying “to sell newspapers” and dismissed the story by saying that “Nobody’s waking up worried about ballot composition. Not even me. I’m worried about my bills. I’m worried about affordability in health care.”

Peltola is clearly hoping to ride this out for the last week. However, it could snowball legally. The staff was aware of past public denials and the likelihood of an investigation. Indeed, the Justice Department filed to try to address the confusion, but Peltola filed to block the effort and declared in court filings that the allegations were “baseless.”

There may be questions as to whether the lawyers and staff were forthcoming in such filings,

It is not a crime to help engineer decoy candidates, even if it is viewed as the lowest form of dirty politics. Lying about your knowledge or involvement only magnifies the unethical conduct.

However, it is easy to trip a legal wire in such efforts. Campaign filings must be true and correct. Indeed, Elias and the Clinton campaign were later sanctioned for hiding the funding of the infamous Steele dossier as a legal expense. (The Clinton campaign denied such involvement until after the election). The Times refers to the Elias Group as opposed to Elias as an individual in the account of this effort to confuse voters.

There can be allegations of not only misrepresentations in filings but possible violations in the pressuring of potential witnesses, destruction of evidence, or false statements to federal investigators.

The risk of such allegations should lead the Peltola lawyers to withdraw from further work, as they could become potential witnesses and targets in state or federal investigations. Reports indicate grand jury subpoenas are expected in the coming days.

There are also questions about the past interactions of the decoy Dan Sullivan, who insisted that the idea to run was his own idea and that he did not have communications with the Democrats on such an effort. He also has not responded to the story.

Yet, the Times reports an extensive effort to coordinate and communicate with decoys:

The operation began in the summer of 2025 to lure potential spoiler candidates onto the state’s unusual four-person ballot, Ms. Rios said. …

Months later, in early 2026, Mr. Kurtz participated in a video call with members of the ballot composition team, Ms. Rios said. He told the group he had made contact with one of the Dan Sullivans. This Mr. Sullivan lived in the tiny village of Petersburg, and Mr. Kurtz described him as amenable to running if it would help Ms. Peltola, Ms. Rios said.

Mr. Kurtz “told us when he found him,” she said. He said Mr. Sullivan “said he hated Trump, and if it was going to help Mary, he liked Mary. He didn’t have any interest in being a politician, but if this could help.”

Mr. Sullivan, who has maintained that he entered the race of his own volition, did not respond to repeated requests for comment over the past week.

With the reported investigations unfolding, this has the makings of a major scandal with possible criminal and civil elements. It would be wise for staffers to “lawyer up.” The likelihood of state and federal investigations is quite high and it is also likely that some of these same sources will cooperate with investigators. Lawyers tend to minimize the risk for their clients in such investigation. They do not want their client to be the target without a chair when the music stops.

In other words, this is likely to metastasize in the coming weeks. However, with the rapidly approaching election, the die is cast on the ballots. That may be good news for the Democrats for retaking power, but it may not be good news for the potential targets. It will only magnify the costs of this conspiracy if it moves from a political conspiracy to an actual criminal conspiracy.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”