Below is my column on the return of Marc Elias in another campaign controversy with the Alaskan decoy scandal. The Elias Law Group and other lawyers were tied to the effort to confuse Alaskan voters by The New York Times in its recent investigative report. These lawyers presumably have a growing conflict of interest as dozens of subpoenas shower down on Alaska. What is clear is that this scandal will not end on Tuesday and, if the results are close in favor of Democrat Mary Peltola, there could be a major fight over her taking her seat in the Senate.
Here is the column:
Marc Elias is back. The notorious Democratic lawyer who played a critical role in the 2016 Russia hoax is again in the news. His law firm has been identified by the New York Times as part of the expanding scandal involving Democratic effort to confuse voters in Alaska with a decoy candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan.
For those familiar with Elias’s checkered history, this is a case of rounding up the usual suspects.
The scandal involving Democratic candidate Mary Peltola has quickly snowballed this week. A New York Times blockbuster investigative report quotes former staff who claim she knew of a cynical effort by her own campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to confuse voters by recruiting and fielding a decoy “Dan Sullivan” candidate in the race against incumbent Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan (R-Alaska). State and federal investigations are now unfolding, with dozens of federal subpoenas raining down on Alaska.
The effort to get voters to cast mistaken ballots is grossly unethical and, even in these rage-filled times, a uniquely disgraceful scheme. Peltola and the Democratic Party had long denied any involvement in the other Sullivan’s candidacy. So when the Times produced evidence that she allegedly knew, and that Democratic staffers and lawyers had been deeply involved from the beginning, many of us were surprised — that is, until the name “Marc Elias” emerged. Then it made more sense.
The Elias Law Group was already in the news this election cycle for threatening reporters with defamation lawsuits if they kept asking questions about the health of former Gov. Roy Cooper, the Democratic nominee for Senate in North Carolina. Earlier, Elias caused a stir during an unsuccessful Democratic gerrymandering effort, raising the idea that Democratic leaders could abolish the entire Virginia government after courts blocked their attempted radical redistricting plan.
The fact that figures such as Peltola and Cooper wanted to be associated with any law firm headed by Elias is itself an indictment of their judgment and standards.
Despite his losses in cases such as National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, Elias is still a favorite of many on the left thanks to his aggression and partisan fervor. The controversies that make him notorious to many make him popular with others.
Elias was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it secretly funded the infamous Steele Dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy theory. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was later indicted but acquitted for making a false statement to the FBI.)
Clinton campaign officials lied to reporters during the 2016 campaign, denying any involvement in the Steele Dossier. Journalists discovered the truth after the election — that the Clinton campaign had hidden payments for the dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that when he tried to report the story, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’”
Times reporter Maggie Haberman later observed that “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” The Federal Election Commission ultimately sanctioned the Clinton campaign for the subterfuge.
While raising money as the self-proclaimed defenders of democracy, Elias’s group has been involved in gerrymandering and efforts criticized as seeking to invalidate Republican votes, including unsuccessful efforts to challenge Democratic electoral losses.
In Maryland, Elias’s team supported another abusive gerrymandering scheme that a court found not only violated Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the proposed map “subverts the will of those governed.”
One media site accused Elias and his group of “making millions off gerrymandering efforts” while publicly denouncing Republican gerrymandering.
In 2024, Elias’s legal team was also accused of pushing “to bar third-party presidential candidates — including Cornel West — from swing state ballots where they might siphon votes” from Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.
Likewise, the New York Times reported that the Elias firm’s work “on behalf of a Soros-funded PAC in Texas … was opposed by a left-leaning election watchdog as undermining laws intended to limit the influence of major donors.”
His group’s work for New York’s redistricting effort was ridiculed as not only ignoring the express will of the voters and also effectively negating Republicans’ votes.
In 2024, the Chief Judge of the Western District of Wisconsin criticized the Elias Law Group for one of its challenges. Judge James Peterson (an Obama appointee) said that the argument “simply does not make any sense.”
Now, Elias’s group is linked to the decoy scandal in Alaska, which allegedly aimed to make voters cast mistaken ballots. What distinguishes lawyers involved in this type of voter disruption is less their talent as their willingness. There are simply some things that most lawyers will not do.
There is also a difference in how lawyers are treated in such controversies. It often seems that election controversies involving Republican lawyers are more likely to end with bar charges and disbarments. Take John Eastman, the former Trump lawyer disbarred in California after a state bar panel found that he had pushed unfounded legal theories and conspired to obstruct the electoral vote count on Jan. 6, 2021.
Although I publicly disagreed with Eastman’s theories, I opposed the effort to disbar him as setting a dangerous precedent for lawyers seeking to advance novel or unpopular theories of recovery or liability. After all, lawyers on the left routinely advance dubious theories, including some that are more ideologically than legally driven. Such controversies rarely rise to the level of disbarment, especially when more appropriate sanctions are available, ranging from reprimands to fines.
Eastman is currently asking the Supreme Court to overturn his disbarment. It is unlikely that Elias Law Group or Peltola’s lawyers will face similar disbarment efforts — nor should they, in my view, unless they were involved in criminal conduct. But the disparate treatment afforded to counsel in this country by party remains a growing concern. What draws a shower of bar complaints for Republican lawyers brings a windfall of clients for Democratic lawyers.
The New York Times has produced sources alleging that lawyers for Peltola’s campaign were involved in this effort, even though they previously told a federal court that they “lack knowledge or information” and “deny any allegation about those purposes.” Such filings and statements could raise ethical or even criminal questions in investigations at both the state and federal levels.
Meanwhile, though, tens of thousands of voters in Alaska have already cast ballots that included the decoy Sullivan candidate. This could result in a nasty fight in Congress if Peltola prevails in the vote count. And when it happens, that is where we will find Marc Elias in his element.
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.”
Here’s the link to the official AK ballot. After Sullivan, Dan S is the language (Registered Republican) incumbent. There is no additional language after Decoy Dan’s name.
https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_official_sample_ballots,_2026
‘The effort to get voters to cast mistaken ballots is grossly unethical and, even in these rage-filled times, a uniquely disgraceful scheme.’
It is, and it is all that remains within the ‘democratic’ party. Between this and Carville calling people with the temerity to disobey orders, ‘used c*ndoms’ – sheesh. There is just too much out there every day now for anyone to be completely in the dark about the modern left’s awfulness; one can only conclude that their constituency either approves, or have no spine, or are just plain old bigots, and that is both very sad and very scary.
One way to reduce the frequency of events like this is to insist an aspirant put down a monetary deposit (returnable in certain contingencies) to have his name on the ballot. Consider the following formula:
==
(Y x 2.75) x (T / 4) / (1,000,000 x N),
==
where ‘Y’ is the Census Bureau’s estimate of the nominal personal income flow in the jurisdiction in question during the calendar year two years prior the current year, ‘T’ is the term of office for the position in question measured in years, and ‘N’ is equal to the number of seats in a given conciliar body elected in said jurisdiction if you are running for such a seat but takes on the value of 1.0 if the office contested is an executive or quasi-executive position.
==
You could incorporate this formula in the state constitution. The aspirant would have to produce a deposit, produce a report with the name and address of each sponsor who contributed to assembling the deposit along with the amount each donated, and would have to swear to same in front of a notary. He’d also have to swear in front of a notary that he informed each donor that by law their donation had to be their own money and not received nor borrowed from any other party. The aspirant might be permitted to borrow, but he’d have to attest that he did and identify the lender.
==
Given Alaska’s nominal personal income flow as estimated by the Census Bureau for 2024, any candidate for the U.S. House this year would have had to produce a deposit of about $44,500. That for a U.S. Senate seat (two Senators, six year term) would be $66.750. That for state governor would be $89,000. That for state senate (20 members, four year term) would be $4,450. That for the lower house (40 members, two year term) would be $1,113. If a candidate met certain performance metrics in the general election, he would have his deposit returned to him (so that he might in turn return the funds put up by his sponsors).
==
Its George X in his new incarnation as little “george x”.
A profession that will allow people like Marc Elias to continue “plying their craft” while simultaneously disbarring attorneys like John Eastman for zealously representing a client is not really a “profession.” Instead, it is an unprincipled cabal worthy of Shakespeare’s comment. Period.
I LOVE how Elias lives in Turley’s head rent-free ever since he correctly labeled the good Professor as “Mike Lindell with tenure.” 🙂
Elias does not live rent free in the good professor’s head. PT is just pointing out how whenever Democrats are doing questionable things, generally unethical, Elias appears. Kinda like when a cockroach when you flip on the kitchen light, there he is!
If Elias were not doing these questionable things, PT would not have anything to point it out.
Your comment is mind numbing. I rather suspect that is because it originated from a mind already numbed.
That explains Turley’s John Say-length screed.
The whole business is repellent, but it’s one of a long list of defects in the electoral system (any of which the Media Matters recruits on this site will defend if they fancy they’ll inflate the Democratic Party’s tallies).
==
What we would benefit from is blasting all the barnacles off the hull.
We have FISA courts, Tax courts, Immigration courts, then why not election courts. This would not interfere in any states court system but could be created by congress since it can create courts inferior to the Supreme Court and it would only apply to Federal Elections. Main contention would be appointments to the Court. 5 judges. 1 appointed by the President, 2 by the Minority party and 2 appointed by the Majority Party. Chief Justice can appoint a presiding judge who would have no vote. Fund investigators and give subpoena power. Appeals go direct to Supreme Court. Court is appointed on the day the president is inaugurated then dissolves 4 years later and new court appointed. Federal district or appeals court judges already cleared by the senate can be appointed. DOJ must set up an office to pursue and charge individuals as needed.
GEB
The White House endorsement of preemptive lawsuits has drenched this controversy with the stigma of lawfare. At the same time, the absence of an actual crime reduces the accusation to little more than suspicion of unethical conduct.
It seems more likely that a majority Senate vote to deny Peltola a seat would be considered a significant diminution of the Senate’s reputation as the worlds greatest deliberative body.
GStreet, when the Times calls a foul on its own team, it’s worth listening. Especially a week before an election.
The two-Sullivan controversy has been going on for months. For the Times to publish something this damaging to Democrats with voting already underway, they’d better be pretty darn sure their sourcing holds up.
That doesn’t prove every allegation. But “the Times made it up” isn’t much of a defense.
Peltola herself and her campaign formally denied any connection to this effort long ago. That also proves nothing, but neither does it relieve the accuser of the responsibility to back up up pure accusation with some concrete evidence. In the final analysis, the burden of proof for poor behavior is completely lacking, as well as any evidence identifying the guilty party as Peltola herself (and not someone else ).
“. . . the burden of proof for poor behavior is completely lacking . . .”
How do you know that? Did you read the NYT article (or any other resource)?
“. . . the accuser of the responsibility to back up up pure accusation with some concrete evidence.”
Clearly you did not do any research or independent thinking. There is not “the accuser.” There are multiple accusers — and oodles of “concrete evidence.”
You are free to disagree with those accusers. And you are free to rebut the evidence. But you are not free to wish them out of existence.
Very true. What it does do however is hint at how desperate the Democrat Party is in this cycle. I for one cannot understand that desperation. Given the history of mid term elections one has to wonder.
OLLY,
It is not only the evidence the NYT uncovered, you can read it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/democrats-alaska-senate-midterms-dan-sullivan.html?showTranscript=1
It is also the reactions of those involved, the fact Elias is involved.
Democrats fought a 1st Civil War to destroy America
Democrats are fighting a 2nd Civil War to destroy America
reminder EVERY SINGLE Democrat Voter hates America
It is obvious the left hate western society and wish to destroy it by importing the WORST of the WORLD!
The evidence is there for all to see.
the open borders, the massive voter fraud, the theft of trillions, the massive fraud, DEI. etc
Got proof?
Not at all “a uniquely disgraceful scheme.” Early in his political career, 1946, John F. Kennedy’s campaign paid a 27-year-old janitor named Joseph Russo to file to run in the Democrat primary for a Massachusetts congressional seat, in which another opponent also named Joseph Russo was already competing against JFK. Whether or not JFK himself was aware of this stunt remains debated in history; the evidence points to Joseph Kennedy’s pocketbook and operatives as the ones who actually executed it.
Democrats cheat…it is their nature
The are hate filled, greedy, violent, liars
Excellent job regurgitating the Democratic Party’s sanctioned rebuttal, Annie!
Alaska’s Decoy Scandal Brings Back the Usual Suspects for Democratic Election CHEATING
“Marc Elias” – Why hadn’t dis guy gotten a cell next to Jeffery Epstein?
In any rules-based-system, once you tolerate gaming of the rules, belief in rules-based-architecture falters. People, alarmed by the chaos and disorderly conduct, are then tempted to flirt with authoritarianism to reestablish an instant referee with the power to deter rule-gaming. The autority figure is given to case-by-case “discretion” that devolves into arbitrary and capricious self-service.
It is possible to cultivate highly professional referee organizations, as we see in all our major sports leagues. These referees are steeped in honor and integrity, knowing pragmatically that the slightest bias in calling fouls will be damaging to the sports competition.
Our electoral system is lacking a real-time referee role. The partisan lawyers and activists know this, and throw their efforts into gaming the rules.
If our campaigns and elections are so critical to our ability to govern, why doesn’t our system have on-the-spot referees to keep the competition honest and aboveboard? If sports leagues can do it, why can’t our governing system?
Marc “Pee Pee Diary” Elias is at it again, dedicating his life as a dirtbag to tearing an entire nation apart. After more than a decade, the Swamp Cabal of Hillary Clinton, Elias, the outgoing Obama administration and the entirety of the Swamp continues to poison the American body politic with a Russian interference canard. He personifies the increasingly inescapable fact that Democrats stand for anything and everything except democracy.
Funny when first I heard about the decoy, I thought of Elias.
Marc Elias is the best Democrat lawyer there has ever been.
…if duping the public for political gain is your measure of good.
If it looks like it, smells like it, and tastes like it, don’t step in it!
Leftwing Fascists do not believe they can win elections fairly, so they resort to lying, cheating and stealing. People like Elias use legal weaponry to overturn the will of the people. They also push for their opponents to be disbarred, shunned, debanked, deplatformed and converted to “unpersons”. 1984 is alive and well in the Democrat party.
Good catch! Exactly what Turley wrote.