Dan J. Sullivan from Petersburg, right, is challenging Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan, left, in Alaska’s 2026 U.S. Senate race. (Photos provided by Dan J. Sullivan, right, and by Bill Roth / ADN, left)
An Anchorage Superior Court judge on Friday ruled that a challenger to U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible to run for office and be placed on the Aug. 18 primary ballot, though the two share the same name and party affiliation.
The decision by Judge Thomas Matthews is expected to set up a quick battle before the Alaska Supreme Court, with a noon Tuesday deadline for printing ballots driving the timeline for a final decision.
Dan J. Sullivan, 70 and a retired teacher from Petersburg, appealed to the Superior Court on Monday after the Alaska Division of Elections earlier this month rejected his bid to run for office.
The disqualification came after the division received formal complaints from the Alaska Republican Party, which had joined the National Republican Senatorial Committee in alleging that Democrats had encouraged Dan J. Sullivan to run, in order to benefit the incumbent senator’s top opponent, Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola.
“Because the Court has determined the Division’s decision to exclude Mr. Sullivan from the primary ballot was based on a ‘good-faith’ requirement that does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, the Alaska Statutes, or the implementing regulations adopted by the Division, the Division’s decision must be reversed,” Matthews wrote.
Alaska Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, who is a Republican, had determined that Dan J. Sullivan’s declaration of candidacy was not filed in good faith.
In the case, attorneys for the state said it was unprecedented to have two similarly named candidates running for the same seat.
They argued that the state has the authority under the U.S. Constitution to manage how elections are held and that Dan J. Sullivan wants to “deliberately to confuse voters” by attempting to run as a Republican against U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, also a Republican.
Sen. Sullivan, running for his third term, has also complained that the challenger is trying to trick voters. Dan J. Sullivan has denied that, and said he’s running because the senator has done a poor job serving Alaskans.
Judge Thomas Matthews speaks with attorneys during a status hearing held in the case of Dan J. Sullivan vs. the Alaska Division of Elections in Anchorage on June 23. (Marc Lester / ADN)
Judge Matthews disagreed with the state’s argument that the greater weight of the evidence showed he was trying to mislead voters.
“In addition, the Director’s assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by a preponderance of evidence,” Matthews wrote. “Instead, the Division accepted at face-value the assertions of the complaint, and disregarded Mr. Sullivan’s assertions.”
Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, argued in the case that the challenger met all qualifications in the U.S. Constitution to run for office. State regulations call for the use of middle initials to distinguish candidates in situations like these, he said.
Matthews this week agreed to expedite a decision, citing “great public interest.”
The Alaska race could help determine control of the U.S. Senate in the November elections.
Attorneys from both sides presented oral arguments in a hearing on Thursday that was live-streamed on Zoom.
Rachel Witty, an attorney for the state, had requested a rapid decision by Matthews so the case can move to the Alaska Supreme Court, an indication that the state will appeal.
Matthews on Thursday encouraged attorneys in the case to get a good rest, since they’ll likely be busy over the weekend preparing for arguments before the state Supreme Court.
“Director Beecher in essence found that Mr. Sullivan lacked a particular quality or fitness, specifically a ‘good-faith’ intention, and for this reason alone de-certified his candidacy for office,” Matthews wrote.
“Because the Director relied on a qualification outside of the three qualifications specified in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the court finds that the Division’s ‘good-faith’ requirement is unlawful,” Matthews wrote, referring to age, U.S. citizenship and state residency requirements.
Read the judge’s ruling below, or click here:
• • •
