A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump’s administration seeking to prevent Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate election results under certain circumstances, delivering a significant legal setback just two days before the November 3, 2026, midterm elections.
The ruling comes amid an increasingly contentious race between Republican Senator Dan Sullivan and Democratic challenger Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman whose campaign has made the contest one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate battles.
At the center of the dispute is an unusual complication: two candidates named Dan Sullivan appearing on the same ballot. The Department of Justice filed its lawsuit on October 22, arguing that the presence of another candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan could confuse voters and potentially influence the election’s outcome.
The administration sought to prevent certification if the Republican incumbent lost by a margin that could have been affected by votes cast for the similarly named candidate.
President Trump publicly acknowledged ordering the legal action, arguing that voters deserved protection against possible electoral deception.
Republicans have accused political operatives connected to Peltola’s campaign of encouraging the second Sullivan to enter the race to divide the incumbent’s support. Peltola has denied knowing about or participating in such an effort. The allegations remain contested.
On November 1, U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason dismissed the federal government’s case. Her ruling emphasized that the Justice Department had failed to present a workable method for identifying potentially confused voters while protecting the secrecy of their ballots.
Federal attorneys had proposed separating ballots cast for the second Sullivan and investigating whether voters had mistakenly supported him.
However, the judge determined that such an investigation would be impractical and could undermine fundamental election protections. The ruling also raised concerns about federal interference with state election administration immediately before voting concluded.
The Justice Department announced plans to appeal, maintaining that the presence of two similarly named candidates created legitimate concerns about electoral fairness. Despite the controversy, incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan publicly stated that he would accept the election results even if he lost.
Speaking on CNN, Sullivan emphasized that his immediate priority was winning reelection rather than pursuing legal challenges. Nevertheless, he continued questioning Peltola’s denials concerning the recruitment allegations.
The controversy has intensified political tensions in Alaska, where the Senate race could help determine which party controls the chamber.
Peltola, who previously made history as Alaska’s first Native representative in Congress, has positioned herself as an independent-minded Democrat. Sullivan, meanwhile, is seeking a third Senate term. Alaska’s electoral system allows voters to rank candidates according to preference.
If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated and eligible ballots are transferred according to voters’ next preferences. This system could reduce the effect of confusion between the two Sullivan candidates, particularly if voters rank both men.
During August’s primary, Peltola received approximately 49.5% of the vote, compared with 41.4% for the incumbent senator.
The second Sullivan received approximately 2.5%. Those results demonstrated the competitiveness of the race while leaving the general election’s outcome uncertain.
The dispute has raised important questions about the federal government’s authority to intervene in state elections, the protection of voter privacy, and the consequences of last-minute legal challenges.
Election experts have warned that attempts to change voting procedures close to Election Day could create confusion and weaken public confidence.
Supporters of the administration’s lawsuit argue that authorities must investigate credible concerns about deliberate voter deception.
Opponents maintain that election disputes must be resolved without compromising ballot secrecy or established certification procedures.
For Alaska voters, the ruling means the election can proceed under existing rules unless a higher court intervenes. Nationally, the case highlights the growing legal and political tensions surrounding election administration as control of Congress hangs in the balance
