The New York Times published an investigation detailing how operatives linked to Democratic candidate Mary Peltola's campaign recruited a retired teacher named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. to run against incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan in Alaska's November 3 Senate race. The tactic — placing a namesake candidate on the ballot to split an opponent's vote — is known as ballot stacking and is generally legal. Both major parties have used it in Alaska. The Times traced the operation to 2025, when a Peltola aide was tasked with identifying Alaskans named Dan Sullivan. Democratic operative Jerid Kurtz approached potential candidates, sometimes under an assumed name. Another Democrat withdrew from the race after contact from Kurtz, opening a slot for Republican Gerald Heikes, who also said he had been encouraged to run. Peltola's former campaign manager, Elisa Rios, told the Times that Peltola knew about the operation but did not participate directly. Rios later sought to withdraw her statements; the Times said other evidence supported its reporting. Alaska's Supreme Court upheld the retired teacher's right to stand in June. The state uses ranked-choice voting, where voters rank candidates by preference and votes transfer when a first choice is eliminated. The sitting senator is identified as the incumbent Republican on the ballot. Four candidates are competing in total. Trump responded on Truth Social, calling the operation "Voter Fraud at the Highest Level" and demanding both Peltola and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. be removed from the ballot and prosecuted. He accused Democrats of lying under oath. Peltola's campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee denied recruiting candidates. Peltola's campaign said political threats from Washington would not stop her candidacy. The critical escalation is not the ballot-stacking — it's the federal response. Trump's Justice Department sued Alaska last week, seeking to delay certification if Senator Sullivan loses and votes for his namesake could have affected the outcome. Alaska has asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing it lacks legal grounds. This is the federal government attempting to override a state election process over a legal campaign tactic that a state supreme court already blessed. The structural question is whether the executive branch can selectively criminalize legal political tactics when the outcome threatens its preferred candidates. Ballot stacking is cynical, but it is legal — the Times itself noted this repeatedly. Prosecuting legal campaign behavior on a fraud theory, and using the DOJ to delay certification of an unfavorable result, converts election administration into a partisan enforcement tool. Control of the U.S. Senate hangs in the balance. Alaska's race is one of several that could determine the chamber's majority. The louder the noise about fraud, the easier it becomes to delegitimize any result that doesn't favor the incumbent — and to normalize federal intervention in state elections as a standing option.
