Judge says Dan Sullivan in Alaska Senate primary can run—against Dan Sullivan

Earlier this month, Alaska’s Division of Elections Director Carol Beehcer disqualified challenger Dan J. Sullivan from appearing on the primary ballot. However, Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews overturned that decision, ruling that the state lacked sufficient legal authority to exclude the candidate.

In his ruling, the judge found that excluding the challenger Sullivan on the grounds that his candidacy was not filed “in good faith” was inconsistent with the law and the divisions’ own regulations. The candidate, a retired teacher from a fishing community, filed to run earlier this year.

The Elections Division will appeal the decision, according to a report by the Associated Press. An attorney for the challenger said he expected an appeal and declined to commit until the Alaska Supreme Court weighs in.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, along with Senator Sullivan, has argued that the two candidates with the same name could confuse voters.

Alaska’s election system allows the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, to move onto a rank-choice general election in November. The challenger has the same party affiliation as the senator. However, the senator has accused his challenger of working with democrats to cause confusion and boost the odds of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola.

Peltola and the challenger have denied the allegations.

Despite the denial, metadata from the press release announcing the challenging Sullivan’s candidacy indicated that it had been drafted by Democrat operative, Amber Lee who has previously backed Peltola.

In her original decision to disqualify the challenger, Beecher argued that his candidacy was not in good faith. The challenger has recently changed his party affiliation to Republican, and his social media presence is paper-thin.

Beecher wrote the candidacy “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.”

“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” said Alaska Department of Law attorney Rachel Witty.

https://rumble.com/embed/v79ojiy/?pub=2n05b