Staff Reports
The New York Times dropped a bombshell about Alaska’s Senate race this week: investigators say operatives tied to Rep. Mary Peltola’s side allegedly recruited a second Dan Sullivan to siphon votes from Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK). The report claims the plan was meant to confuse voters and tilt a close race. Whether you call it a dirty trick or basic campaign skulduggery, the fallout on the ground was immediate—and not flattering for anyone pretending this is normal politics.
What the Times reported: an alleged “decoy” Dan Sullivan
The NYT story says operatives aligned with Peltola’s campaign and, reportedly, with Democratic groups, reached out to a second candidate named Dan J. Sullivan Jr. The goal, the paper alleges, was to put two Dan Sullivans on the ballot so some voters would pick the wrong name. That’s not a clever strategy. It’s a cheat play that treats voters like a game piece. The allegation matters because it attacks the basic trust voters must have in a free election.
Confused voters and the “scheme is working” moment
On election day, available reporting showed real confusion. A NewsNation clip caught a voter who wasn’t sure which Dan Sullivan he’d chosen. Sen. Dan Sullivan even said supporters called to apologize, thinking they voted for the wrong man—then dryly added, “The scheme is working.” If voters are second-guessing their ballot choices, you don’t call that a close contest; you call it a crisis of legitimacy.
Flyers, a PAC, and the spin machine
Voters also reported receiving flyers from a group called Alaska Values PAC that listed Mary Peltola, Gerald Heikes, and “Dan J. Sullivan Jr.” Notice anything missing? The incumbent senator’s photo. That kind of selective presentation smells like design, not accident. Peltola supporters pushed back hard, calling the NYT report “lies” and “rubbish.” Fine—deny it if you must. But denials don’t erase confused ballots or a flyer that looks engineered to mislead.
Why this could matter beyond Alaska
This isn’t just local dirt. If true, the tactic sets a dangerous precedent: recruit a lookalike name to siphon votes, then shrug when people are misled. Courts and election officials should be paying attention. Voters deserve clear ballots and honest campaigns. Republicans need to make this about protecting the vote, not just about one seat. And Democrats who shrug off such tactics as “just politics” are showing contempt for the republic they claim to serve.
At the end of the day, Alaskans deserve better than manufactured confusion. If the allegations hold up, those responsible should face consequences and voters should demand reforms to stop name-similarity scams in future races. Until then, every campaign that thinks this is clever should remember: tricking people at the ballot box is a fast way to lose trust—and eventually, elections.
