Alaska Has Two Dan Sullivan Republicans Running for Senate and the State Can't Stop It

The Judge Said What, Exactly

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews overturned a June 15 decision by Alaska's Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, who had disqualified the challenger on the grounds that his candidacy was not filed in "good faith." The judge did not find this compelling. At all.

According to CBS News, Matthews wrote that the division's disqualification was "not based upon the Constitution, Alaska law or the division's own regulations" but instead on a "new, previously unstated, 'good faith' criteria" that Beecher had essentially invented for the occasion. In other words: you can't make up new rules to boot someone off the ballot just because the situation is inconvenient. That's not how constitutions work.

The state is appealing. They have until Tuesday to get a final ruling before ballots for the August 18 primary go to print. The Alaska Supreme Court now gets to weigh in on whether a retired teacher named Dan Sullivan has the right to run against a U.S. senator named Dan Sullivan, which is a sentence that would have gotten you laughed out of a political fiction workshop six months ago.

Meet the Other Dan Sullivan

The challenger is Dan J. Sullivan, 69, a retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee from Petersburg, Alaska, a small fishing community of a few thousand people. He is not a senator. He has not raised any money, at least none that CBS News could find on record. He is, however, a man who looked at a crowded Senate primary and thought: my name is a pretty good starting point.

He told CBS News that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent gave him "an instant megaphone." He said he had been considering a run for some time and had grown genuinely frustrated with the senator. Whether or not you buy that framing depends a lot on your priors about human nature and electoral mischief.

Election officials tried to disqualify him based on a few circumstantial details: he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., he changed his party affiliation to Republican in conjunction with filing, his campaign website had some similarities to the senator's, and he had worked with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. Beecher said, CBS News reports, she found no actual evidence of coordination. Just vibes, essentially.

The Senator Is Not Taking This Well

Senator Dan S. Sullivan, the incumbent, has been loud about this. He went to reporters at the Capitol earlier this month to accuse Democrats of being "complicit in trying to trick Alaskans" and to "rig an election in their favor." The National Republican Senatorial Committee backed him up. Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom opened an investigation into the challenger's candidacy. The machinery of the Alaska GOP cranked up hard against a retired teacher from Petersburg.

The senator's specific accusation is that the challenger is working with the campaign of former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, who is considered his main opponent in the November general election. Peltola's campaign denied it. State Democrats denied it. The challenger denied it. The election officials who investigated found no evidence of it. That's a lot of denial for an allegation resting entirely on the fact that two people have the same name.

The senator's concern is not irrational, to be clear. Alaska uses a top-four primary system where the leading vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to a ranked-choice general election. A second Republican named Dan Sullivan splitting the name-recognition vote is a genuine strategic headache. But "this is bad for me" and "this is illegal" are different arguments, and the judge just ruled pretty firmly on which one holds up in court.

The Constitutional Question Nobody Wanted to Have

Here is where it gets genuinely interesting from a legal standpoint, and stay with me. Attorneys for the challenger argued that the U.S. Constitution lays out exactly three qualifications for Senate candidates: age, citizenship, and residency. That's it. States don't get to add a fourth requirement called "we think you're doing this for the wrong reasons."

The state pushed back by arguing that the Constitution doesn't require them to "place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices," according to court filings cited by CBS News. Which is a genuinely spicy legal argument. The counter-argument is: how do you legally define a sham candidate in a country where anyone who meets three criteria can run for Senate?

The judge sided with the challenger. The Constitution says what it says. You can find it confusing, you can find it politically damaging, you can find the whole situation deeply irritating, but the document doesn't include a "good faith" test administered by election officials who really wish you'd go home.

The Stakes Are Real, Which Makes This Funnier and More Alarming

Alaska's Senate race is not a sideshow. CBS News reports it is one of roughly half a dozen Senate races expected to be genuinely competitive this fall, and Democrats are eyeing the seat as part of their effort to reclaim a majority. The problem is that Trump carried Alaska by 13 points in 2024, so Peltola, the Democrat, is already climbing a steep hill.

Now that hill potentially has a retired teacher standing at the bottom of it, also named Dan Sullivan, also Republican, potentially pulling a few percentage points from the incumbent in a primary where every point matters. Whether or not that was the plan, that is the situation. And as of Friday's ruling, it's the situation Alaska is going to have to live with, at least until the state Supreme Court has its say.