FACTUM
Português

CASE #0011 · OPENED 1 NOV · UPDATED 3 DAYS AGO

The two Dan Sullivans: what's known about the alleged decoy candidate in Alaska's Senate race

A New York Times report says Peltola-aligned operatives recruited a namesake to siphon votes from the senator. Those involved deny it, investigations are open, and no one has been charged.

Evidence board

  • DisputedOperatives aligned with Mary Peltola recruited Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. to run in order to confuse voters and siphon votes from Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.2 / 2 sources

    Both articles relay a New York Times report making this claim, but the underlying evidence is not reproduced in the provided sources. Peltola's campaign and Daniel J. Sullivan deny any coordination. The state elections division concluded in June that his bid was filed to confuse or mislead, but courts overturned the decision without ruling on his motives. Investigations are ongoing and no charges have been filed.

  • DisputedMary Peltola was personally aware of the effort to recruit a second Dan Sullivan.2 / 2 sources

    According to ZeroHedge, Peltola's fired former campaign manager Elisa Rios told the Times Peltola was 'definitely aware', but Rios, who is suing Peltola for wrongful termination, retracted all her statements before publication. Peltola publicly denied any knowledge on Oct. 29.

  • UnclearA specific money trail funded the second Sullivan: $87,000 from the 49th State PAC to an Ohio consultant, and $1.15 million spent by the Right for Alaska super PAC, $990,000 of it from the Sixteen Thirty Fund.1 / 2 sources

    These figures appear only in the Kunstler column, apparently drawn from the Times report, which was not among the provided articles. FactCheck.org's text does not mention them. The column's link to George Soros is the author's own characterization, offered without supporting evidence.

  • VerifiedThe Justice Department filed a preemptive lawsuit asking Alaska not to certify a result that may have been affected by voter confusion.2 / 2 sources

    Both sources report the suit. FactCheck.org says it was filed on Oct. 22 at Trump's behest and would apply if the senator loses by fewer votes than Daniel J. Sullivan receives. ZeroHedge dates it Oct. 23.

  • VerifiedGov. Mike Dunleavy ordered a state criminal investigation into the matter.2 / 2 sources

    Both outlets report that Dunleavy ordered the probe the day after the Times story. ZeroHedge specifies the Alaska Bureau of Investigation.

  • UnclearA federal grand jury was convened in August, and prosecutors have issued 30 to 40 subpoenas.1 / 2 sources

    Only the Kunstler column makes this claim, and it cites no source. FactCheck.org does not mention a grand jury. Both agree no one has been charged.

  • UnsupportedThe scheme amounts to 'voter fraud at the highest level,' and Peltola should be criminally prosecuted.2 / 2 sources

    Trump made this assertion, but no charges have been filed and no investigation has concluded. The courts ruled that Alaska law contains no 'good-faith' requirement for candidates. Whether recruiting a same-name candidate breaks any law has not been tested.

  • FalseIt is a mystery how Daniel J. Sullivan was allowed on the ballot.2 / 2 sources

    The reasoning is on the public record. A Superior Court judge found that the elections division had relied on a 'good-faith' test that appears in no statute or regulation. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, calling his removal an extreme remedy.

Analysis

Alaska's U.S. Senate ballot this year lists two men named Dan Sullivan. One is the Republican incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan. The other is Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired teacher from Petersburg. Since May, Republicans have argued that the second Sullivan is a decoy meant to pull votes from the senator and hand the race to Democrat Mary Peltola. A New York Times report on Oct. 28 sharpened that accusation, and within days the Justice Department, Alaska's governor and President Donald Trump had all weighed in. We compared a detailed explainer from FactCheck.org with an opinion column by James Howard Kunstler republished by ZeroHedge.

What's being claimed

The central claim comes from the Times, as relayed by both outlets: operatives aligned with Peltola helped recruit Daniel J. Sullivan to siphon votes from the incumbent. Kunstler's column goes much further. It describes a "ballot composition project" involving the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Marc Elias law firm. It lists specific payments, including $87,000 from a pro-Peltola PAC to an Ohio consultant hired to find a willing Dan Sullivan, and $990,000 that the Sixteen Thirty Fund passed to a super PAC backing him. It also says Peltola's former campaign manager told the Times that Peltola was "definitely aware." Trump called the affair "voter fraud at the highest level" and said Peltola should be prosecuted. The Justice Department has sued to block certification if the senator loses by fewer votes than his namesake receives.

What the evidence shows

The legal history is well documented. On June 15, state elections director Carol Beecher ruled that Daniel J. Sullivan's bid was not a good-faith candidacy but was "filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead." She noted that he had no Republican affiliation on record until two days before filing. A Superior Court judge overturned that decision on June 27, finding that no constitution, statute or regulation imposes a good-faith test. The state Supreme Court affirmed. The courts did not find his candidacy genuine. They found the state had no legal basis to exclude him over motive. Kunstler calls the outcome a "mystery," but the reasoning is public. Daniel J. Sullivan won 2.47% in the August primary and advanced to the general election.

The recruitment allegation rests on the Times report, which was not among our sources. Its documents are not reproduced in either article. The detailed money trail appears only in Kunstler's column, and we could not check it against the Times. His link to George Soros is the author's own characterization.

On Peltola's personal role, the evidence cuts both ways. According to ZeroHedge, ex-campaign manager Elisa Rios is suing Peltola for wrongful termination, and she retracted all her statements before the Times published. Peltola said on Oct. 29: "I knew nothing about any other candidates on the ballot except for me and the incumbent." Daniel J. Sullivan wrote in June that he had had no conversations with the Peltola campaign.

No one has been charged. Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered a state criminal investigation on Oct. 29. Kunstler says a federal grand jury has issued 30 to 40 subpoenas, but FactCheck.org does not mention this. The two outlets also differ on small facts. They date the DOJ suit to Oct. 22 and Oct. 23, respectively. ZeroHedge says Daniel J. Sullivan filed without a party label, while the documents FactCheck.org quotes show he asked to be listed as a Republican.

How outlets covered it

FactCheck.org took a chronological approach. It quoted both Sullivans, Peltola and state officials, and called the DOJ's preemptive suit "unusual." ZeroHedge ran a polemic that treats the scheme as proven. It accuses the Times of spinning the story and ties the case to the Steele dossier, Elias and Soros. The column closes with a partisan appeal, though an editor's note does acknowledge the denials.

What we still don't know

  • What evidence the Times holds, and whether Peltola's campaign or only outside groups were involved.
  • Whether Daniel J. Sullivan knew he was being recruited for strategic reasons.
  • Whether any state or federal law was broken, and what the DOJ and state investigations will find.
  • Why Rios retracted her statements.
  • How a court will treat the DOJ's request to withhold certification if the margin is close.

Sources

Comments