Saved copy of

United States v. State of Alaska, complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (via CourtListener RECAP) · 2026-10-22

The saved file is a PDF document of 0.4 MB. What follows is the text taken from it, which is the text the story quotes.

STANLEY E. WOODWARD, JR.
Associate Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 514-9500
Email: Stanley.Woodward@usdoj.gov

E. BRYAN WILSON
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse
222 West Seventh Avenue, #9, Room 253
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7567
Phone: (907) 271-5071
Fax: (907) 271-2344
Email: Bryan.Wilson@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

United States of America,
Plaintiff, Civ. No. 3:26-cv-
v. COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND
State of Alaska; Carol Beecher, in her official INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
capacity as Director of the Division of
Elections of the State of Alaska; the Election ACTION SEEKING
Boards of the State of Alaska; and the State STATEWIDE RELIEF
Ballot Counting Review Board of the State of
Alaska.
Defendants.

Plaintiff, the United States of America, hereby alleges as follows:

Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 1 of 14

---

INTRODUCTION

1. Dan S. Sullivan (“Senator Sullivan”) has represented the State of Alaska in

the United States Senate since 2015. He is running for reelection as a Republican in

November 2026, in what most observers believe will be a close race against Democrat

Mary Peltola.

2. Daniel J. Sullivan decided to run for Senator in 2026 as a Republican with

the intention of misleading supporters of Senator Sullivan into voting for him. The sole

purpose of his candidacy is to benefit the Peltola campaign by reducing the number of votes

for Senator Sullivan.

3. Congress has tasked state officials with “protect[ing] the integrity of the

electoral process,” 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3), and the Supreme Court has long recognized

that states “ha[ve] an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes

from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies.” Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 135, 145 (1972);

see also Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 442 (1971) (“There is surely an important state

interest in … avoiding confusion, deception, and even frustration of the democratic process

at the general election.”).

4. Should Alaska certify any electoral results tainted by the inclusion on the

ballot of Daniel J. Sullivan—whose candidacy, Defendant Beecher found, is “for the

purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot” 1—

the State and its officers will fail in its obligation to protect the integrity of its election.

1
Ex. A, at 2 (Letter from Carol Beecher, Director, to Daniel J. Sullivan (June 15,
2026)).
U.S. v. SOA, et al. 2
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 2 of 14

---

5. The United States accordingly brings this lawsuit to protect the integrity of

the 2026 Senate election in Alaska.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345 because the

United States is a plaintiff and brings a claim under federal law.

7. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 22021-2202.

8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because all defendants reside

in the District of Alaska.

9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of

the events or omissions giving rise to the United States’ claim occurred and will occur in

this District, including the administration and conduct of the November election for Senate,

the counting of ballots in that election, and the certification of the result of that election.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff is the United States of America, represented by the Attorney

General. The Attorney General is authorized to “bring a civil action in an appropriate

district court for such declaratory or injunctive relief as is necessary to carry out” Chapter

205 of Title 52 of the U.S. Code. 52 U.S.C. § 20510(a).

11. Defendant State of Alaska is one of the fifty states making up the United

States.

12. Defendant Carol Beecher is sued in her official capacity as Director of

Alaska’s Division of Elections. The Director “act[s] for the lieutenant governor in the

supervision of central and regional election offices, . . . and the administration of all state

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 3
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 3 of 14

---

elections . . . . The director is responsible for the coordination of state responsibilities under

the [National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)].” A.S. § 15.15.105. The Director is

responsible for “provid[ing] general administrative supervision over the conduct of state

elections.” Id. § 15.15.010. She also “shall review the counting of the ballots with the

assistance of and in the presence of the appointed representatives from the political

parties.” Id. § 15.15.420.

13. Defendant Election Boards of the State of Alaska are tasked with counting

ballots following an election, A.S. § 15.15.360, and “mak[ing] a certificate . . . of the

results” after “the count of ballots is completed,” id. § 15.15.370. There is at least one

election board appointed in each precinct and composed, by default, of at least three

qualified voters registered to vote in that precinct. Id. § 15.10.120(a); see id. § 15.10.125

(“In each precinct having 200 or more voters additional election boards may be

appointed.”). “The election board shall, immediately upon completion of the certificate or

as soon thereafter as the local mail service permits, send in one sealed package to the

director one copy of the certificate and the register.” Id. § 15.15.370.

14. Defendant State Ballot Counting Review Board of the State of Alaska is

made up of members appointed by the Director. A.S. § 15.180. “The state ballot counting

review shall begin as soon as practicable after the election is completed and not later than

16 days after an election and shall be continued until completed.” Id. § 15.15.440. “The

director shall close the review when the director is satisfied that no missing precinct

certificate of election would, if received, change the result of the election.” Id.

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 4
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 4 of 14

---

15. After all certificates from election boards have been received, and the state

ballot counting review process (over which the Director has certain oversight

responsibility, A.S. § 15.15.440) has been completed, “the director shall certify the person

receiving the largest number of votes for the office for which that person was nominated

or elected, as applicable.” Id. § 15.15.450. “The director shall issue to the elected

candidate[] . . . a certificate of their election or approval.” Id.

STANDING

16. The United States has a substantial and legally cognizable interest in

maintaining the integrity of elections. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501(b)(3), 20510(a). The United

States suffers an injury in fact whenever federal law is violated, Vermont Agency of Nat.

Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 771 (2000), including when remedying

such a violation is necessary to safeguard the sacred right of its citizens to vote, see United

States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 27 (1960). The United States likewise suffers an injury when

the certification of the election for a federal office is tainted by a frivolous candidacy

because that undermines confidence in the make-up and workings of the federal

government.

17. Defendants are each substantially involved in the administration of elections

in Alaska, including the 2026 election for Senator, as well as the collection, counting, and

certification process following the election.

18. An order declaring a certification of an election result prejudiced by Daniel

J. Sullivan’s inclusion on the ballot unlawful and enjoining defendants from allowing such

a certification to occur would redress the United States’ injuries.

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 5
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 5 of 14

---

BACKGROUND

A. Daniel J. Sullivan’s Senate Campaign

19. On or about May 16, 2026, Senator Sullivan filed to run for reelection to the

United States Senate.

20. On or about May 29, 2026, Daniel J. Sullivan filed to run for election to the

Senate. Daniel J. Sullivan had never previously run for political office.

21. Daniel J. Sullivan took several measures designed to dupe Alaska’s voters

into believing that he is Senator Sullivan, as detailed below, prompting complaints to the

Alaska Division of Elections.

22. On June 15, the Alaska Division of Elections (in a letter issued by Defendant

Beecher) found that Daniel J. Sullivan’s declaration of candidacy was not properly filed

with the Division because it was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy

for the office of United States Senator but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or

mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.” Ex. A, at 2.

23. The Alaska Division of Elections detailed several facts (Ex. A, at 1-2)

supporting its conclusion that Daniel J. Sullivan is running for Senate to dupe voters who

intend to vote for Senator Sullivan into voting for him:

a. Daniel J. Sullivan requested that the ballot display his name as “Dan

Sullivan”—the same name used by Senator Sullivan. Daniel J. Sullivan

did not register to vote under the name “Dan Sullivan.”

b. According to the Division, Daniel J. Sullivan “requested to be designated

on the ballot as affiliated with the Republican Party”—the same party as

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 6
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 6 of 14

---

Senator Sullivan—but had never previously “been affiliated with the

Republican Party in Alaska.” His choice to “change [his] affiliation to

the same political party … as the incumbent Senator … immediately

before filing a declaration of candidacy in which [he] asked to access the

ballot under the same name – in a shortened form [he’d] never used before

- as the incumbent Senator strongly suggests an intent to confuse

[him]self with the incumbent Senator rather than to distinguish [him]self

from him.”

c. Although Daniel J. Sullivan decided to run as a Republican, he worked

with a political consultant who is “a known longtime supporter of

Democratic candidates including the primary Democratic challenger to

Senator Sullivan.” Additionally, Daniel J. Sullivan admitted in a July 18,

2026, interview with The New York Times that he voted for Democrats

in the last three presidential elections and voted for Peltola when she ran

for Congress.

d. Daniel J. Sullivan’s “public campaign website … uses a format, color

scheme and overall theme similar to the public website for Senator

Sullivan’s campaign … This again suggests an intention not to distinguish

yourself from the incumbent Senator as any candidate genuinely seeking

office would do, but to confuse Alaskans as to which ‘Dan Sullivan’ is

which.”

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 7
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 7 of 14

---

24. Daniel J. Sullivan sought judicial review of the Division’s determination. A

trial court held that the Division erred in excluding Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot.

Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr. v. Division of Elections, No. 3AN-26-07485CI (Alaska Sup. Ct. June

26, 2026). The Alaska Supreme Court summarily affirmed and indicated that a “full

opinion will be issued at a later date.” Alaska v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., No. S-19935

(Alaska June 29, 2026). The Alaska Supreme Court has yet to issue that opinion.

25. As a result of the Alaska Supreme Court’s summary decision, Daniel J.

Sullivan will be included on Alaska’s ballot for the November 2026 general election.

B. Daniel J. Sullivan’s campaign threatens to mislead Alaska’s voters in the general
election.

26. Alaska uses a two-step process for electing Senators and other officials.

27. In the primary election, all candidates appear on the ballot, regardless of

political party. With irrelevant exceptions, “only the four candidates who receive the

greatest number of votes for any office shall advance to the general election.” AK Stat. §

15.25.010.

28. The general election is “conducted by ranked-choice voting.” AK Stat. §

15.15.350(c). Voters rank their candidates in order of preference and do not have to rank

all candidates.

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 8
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 8 of 14

---

29. “The election board shall initially tabulate each validly cast ballot as one vote

for the highest-ranked continuing candidate on that ballot or as an inactive ballot. If a

candidate is highest ranked on more than one-half of the active ballots, that candidate is

elected and the tabulation is complete.” A.S. § 15.15.350(d). Otherwise, “votes cast for

the defeated candidate shall cease counting for the defeated candidate and shall be added

to the totals of each ballot’s next-highest-ranked continuing candidate.” § 15.15.350(d)(2).

30. For example, consider a citizen who lists Candidate A as his first choice,

Candidate B as his second choice, Candidate C as his third choice, and Candidate D as his

fourth choice. If Candidate A receives the fewest first-place votes, then he is eliminated,

and the citizen’s vote is transferred to Candidate B. If Candidate B now has the most first-

place votes, then that candidate wins the election.

31. Alaska held its primary election on August 28. Peltola received 49.5% of the

vote, Senator Sullivan received 41.4% of the vote, Daniel J. Sullivan received 2.5% of the

vote, and Republican Gerald Heikes received 1.1% of the vote. Those candidates will be

on the ballot in the November general election.

32. As a result of Daniel J. Sullivan’s inclusion on the November ballot, the

ballot will appear confusing to voters looking to vote for Senator Sullivan, as demonstrated

by a sample ballot:

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 9
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 9 of 14

---

33. Daniel J. Sullivan’s presence on the ballot threatens to mislead Alaskan

citizens who want to vote for Senator Sullivan. For example, some supporters of Senator

Sullivan likely will inadvertently vote for Daniel J. Sullivan. Other supporters of Senator

Sullivan likely will be confused as to how to rank the three Republican candidates as to

defeat Peltola. They might not rank Senator Sullivan at all, resulting in votes for Daniel J.

Sullivan to be transferred to Peltola after Daniel J. Sullivan’s all-but-guaranteed

elimination in the first or second round of tabulations.

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 10
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 10 of 14

---

34. Many polls indicate that the race between Senator Sullivan and Peltola will

be within one or two percentage points, and Daniel J. Sullivan received 2.5% of the vote

in the primary election. Thus, there is a realistic chance that, even if a majority of Alaskans

wish to vote for Senator Sullivan, Daniel J. Sullivan’s presence on the ballot will result in

a victory for Peltola.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Count One
(NVRA, 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501(b)(3), 20510(a))

35. The United States incorporates all allegations stated above.

36. “The Attorney General may bring a civil action . . . for such declaratory or

injunctive relief as is necessary to carry out” Chapter 205 of Title 52 of the U.S. Code,

which covers the NVRA.

37. The NVRA imposes a variety of duties on States for the purpose of

“protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process.” 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3); see id. §§

20503-20509.

38. The Supreme Court has long recognized that an important aspect of

safeguarding the “integrity of [a state’s] political processes” is keeping “frivolous . . .

candidacies” from the ballot. Bullock, 405 U.S. at 145; see Lindsay v. Bowen, 750 F.3d

1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a contrary rule would require a state to let

ineligible candidates “clutter and confuse our electoral ballot”).

39. To be sure, Bullock involved including or excluding candidates from the

ballot. 405 U.S. at 145. However, the State was “understandably and properly seek[ing]

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 11
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 11 of 14

---

to prevent the clogging of its election machinery, avoid voter confusion, and assure that the

winner is the choice of a majority, or at least a strong plurality, of those voting, without the

expense and burden of runoff elections.” Id. When the ballot contains a frivolous

candidate, the same state interests remain after ballots have been cast through certification

so as to assure that the State’s “election machinery” is not “clogg[ed]” by frivolous

candidacies that resulted in “voter confusion.” Id. Given the Alaska Supreme Court’s

decision, and the fact that Daniel J. Sullivan’s name is already on the ballot, the only way

to “assure that the winner [of the Alaska Senate seat] is the choice of a majority, or at least

a strong plurality, of those voting,” id., is to ensure that the certification is not impacted by

Daniel J. Sullivan’s frivolous candidacy.

40. Defendant Beecher has already made the determination, in her capacity as

Director of the Division of Elections, that Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy is frivolous in that

his “declaration of candidacy . . . was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith

candidacy for the office of the United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose

to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.” Ex.

A, at 1. That determination was reached after considering the evidence before her as she

thoroughly laid out in Exhibit A, at 1-2.

41. Given the substantial likelihood that the inclusion of Daniel J. Sullivan will

confuse or mislead voters looking to cast a vote for Senator Sullivan, and thus distort the

will of Alaskan voters, there is a substantial likelihood that a certification of the election

will reflect an electoral process that lacked integrity.

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 12
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 12 of 14

---

42. To guard against this danger, it is vital that Defendants not certify any

election result that may be impacted by voter confusion. An election result may be

impacted by voter confusion if: (1) Senator Sullivan does not win the election; and (2) had

all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast instead for Senator Sullivan and Alaska’s

rank-choice process played out accordingly, Senator Sullivan would have won the election.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the United States requests that this Court grant the following
relief:

43. Declare that certification of any result that may be impacted by voter

confusion, as defined above, would violate Defendants’ duties under the NVRA to “protect

the integrity of the electoral process.” 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3).

44. Defendants from certifying any result that may be impacted by voter

confusion, as defined above, pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for

Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan and any further procedures

or relief this Court deems necessary and appropriate to determine what the result would

have been absent Daniel J. Sullivan’s inclusion on the ballot.

45. Award any other relief it deems just and proper.

// //

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 13
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 13 of 14

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this October 22, 2026, in Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Stanley Woodward
Stanley E. Woodward, Jr.
Associate Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 514-9500
Email: Stanley.Woodward@usdoj.gov

/s/ E. Bryan Wilson
E. Bryan Wilson
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse
222 West Seventh Ave., #9, Room 253
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7567
Phone: (907) 271-5071
Email: Bryan.Wilson@usdoj.gov

U.S. v. SOA, et al. 14
Case No: 3:26-cv-
Case 3:26-cv-00376-SLG Document 1 Filed 10/22/26 Page 14 of 14