Posted on 10/24/2026 12:25:59 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday said he told his administration to file its lawsuit to block certification of the U.S. Senate race in Alaska if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, kicking off what many fear could become a lengthy battle between the government and states over certifying an election where the president’s party is struggling.
“I’m the one that said do it,” Trump told reporters as he landed for a campaign rally in Florida.
The lawsuit, filed late Thursday by the Department of Justice, centers on one of the president’s long-standing complaints in the Senate race — the presence of a second candidate named Dan Sullivan who Republicans fear could siphon away votes from the incumbent in what’s likely to be a photo-finish contest with Democrat Mary Peltola, the state’s former congresswoman.
The department has increasingly been used to bolster the president’s political operation, targeting his enemies and suing Democratic-controlled states before the election. Democrats and many voting rights advocates have long feared that the administration will try to block certification of elections that Trump’s party loses, much as he unsuccessfully tried to do when he lost the White House race to Democrat Joe Biden.
U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said that was unlikely outside of extreme circumstances. “It is not DOJ’s intention to, and it’s never our intention to, improperly interfere with elections or the state certification process,” he told reporters Thursday in Virginia before the lawsuit was filed.
The second Dan Sullivan, who is Daniel J. Sullivan from the tiny fishing community of Petersburg, has said he decided to run on his own, but Republicans have contended he is a Democratic plant to siphon votes away from their candidate.
The lawsuit in federal court in Alaska demands the state be blocked from certifying a Peltola win if...
(Excerpt) Read more at enewspaper.latimes.com ...
Vote for Dan Sullivan, not Dan Sullivan.
How did the other Dan Sullivan get on the ballot to begin with???
Rats always play dirty tricks in Alaska- remember all the BS with the FOIA requests when Palin was governor in the state after the 2008 election??
You cannot have two people on the ballot with the exact same name that is why the Dems did it, so that people wouldnt know any better, split the vote and the commie wins
The article is such a cloud of bs.
In 2020, the democrats had a huge nationwide legal apparatus set up to challenge the election if Trump won.
Unless Congress has used its Article I section 4 power to legislate the manner of elections for Senator in Alaska (have they?) there is no Federal role in this matter.
And certainly no Executive branch authority.
The fake Dan Sullivan even lied about his middle initial. He asked to be listed with same initial as the incumbent Dan Sullivan. He walked it back ONLY after threats of being disqualified. The guy is an obvious dirty trick. He was put on the ballot solely to confuse enough Republican voters to allow Mary Peltola to squeak by in a close election. The DOJ is absolutely correct to make plans for this contingency.
If our Dan Sullivan wins what’s the proper payback? I’d put out ads to shame him and run him out of the state-break no laws. Just get the lefties to charge us with hate. Let the folks who don’t know him make him feel like the coward he is. No class? So what?
“You cannot have two people on the ballot with the exact same name”
The names aren’t exactly the same.
When you cite the Constitution here, nine out of ten times you get shouted down.
Of course there is no federal role.
“[T]he democrats had a huge nationwide legal apparatus...”
Of course they did. Both parties prepare for legal challenges before elections.
The issue here not that the Republican Party is pre-emptively questioning the election results but that the United States government, through the Justice Department, is doing so.
The business about similar names does not rise to the violation of any federal election statute.
And the Republican Party should certainly be prepared to challenge problematic results.
The Republican Party is a different organization from the US Justice Department, though.
Or the Senate tries to find a way to use its Article I Section 5 power to "Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" and decline to seat Peltola if she wins within the margin of Dan J. Sullivan's returns.
In your example, it requires the full Congress to pass legislation addressing Article I Section 4 and then the president to sign it prior to an election.
With the Section 5 power, the Senate can act unilaterally after the election is over.
The closest example of something like this is the 1985 election for the House of Representatives Indiana 8th District race between Frank McCloskey (D) and Richard McIntyre (R).
McIntyre won the election by 72 votes on election night, but a correction by Gibson County reduced McIntyre's lead to 34 votes. McCloskey sought recounts in all 15 counties, but Indiana's Republican Secretary of State certified the election for McIntyre while recounts were still taking place.
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives (253-182) under Speaker Tip O'Neill conducted their own independent review under Article I Section 5 powers and declared McCloskey the winner and seated him instead of McIntyre.
The full state recount was completed on January 22, 1985, and it widened McIntyre's lead to 418 votes. The House chose to ignore it and retained McCloskey.
-PJ
You are correct, a 50-50 Senate could refuse to seat Petola.
However, if she clearly wins, I doubt you could get 50 Republicans to go along - if, that is, there are 50 Republicans left after November 3.
It’s 50 Republican plus Fetterman on certain issues.
But it's not ten Republicans who will vote to seat the clear loser of an election (assuming Petola is the clear winner).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.