President Donald Trump listens as Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, speaks at a campaign rally at the Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Center, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, in Wasilla, Alaska (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
The U.S. Department of Justice responded to motions to dismiss in a case over the U.S. Senate race in Alaska as the Trump administration aims to enjoin the forthcoming election certification if Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan loses narrowly to Democrat Mary Peltola.
The government had argued that voters were subject to “confusion” due to a third candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan, also appearing on the ranked-choice ballot. But in an amended complaint, the DOJ now insists the Democrats themselves are responsible for the alleged confusion, relying on recent The New York Times reporting that Democrats recruited the second Sullivan.
On Thursday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Peltola’s principal campaign committee insisted nothing changed legally due to the “spoiler” plot reporting. In a renewed motion to dismiss, Democrats argued the amended lawsuit failed to “defend its indefensible legal claims as it was ordered to do” by the court.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
On Friday, the Trump administration finally offered that belated defense after the judge overseeing the litigation ordered the government to directly respond to the motions to dismiss by 1 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time — which is 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
The government’s response zeroes in on the Times report.
“Tellingly, in their motion, the Peltola Campaign and the DSCC acknowledge the report that they have orchestrated this fraudulent campaign—and they do not deny any aspect of it,” the motion reads. “Defendants and Intervenors nevertheless argue the United States and this Court are powerless to do anything to protect Alaskans in these circumstances. They are wrong, and the Court should deny their motions to dismiss.”
The majority of the DOJ’s response restates the known facts of the case, again prioritizing the reporting about the second Sullivan’s efforts to be placed on the ballot, including a decision by elections officials to keep him off the ballot, and subsequent litigation that put his name back on the ballot.
“The Motions to Dismiss characterize Mr. Sullivan as a good-faith actor seeking to serve the people of Alaska,” the response motion goes on. “He isn’t. Recent reports suggest he is not only a sham candidate (as has been obvious all along), but also on the cusp of helping the Peltola campaign perpetrate egregious electoral fraud. Allowing this scheme to succeed unabated would be antithetical to the [National Voter Registration Act].”
To hear the government tell it, Alaska, which is also seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, “has a legally enforceable duty under the NVRA to protect the integrity of its election, and preventing Daniel J. Sullivan’s frivolous candidacy from distorting the result of the upcoming election is a necessary part of doing so.”
The DOJ goes on to say that the NVRA “imposes a variety of duties” on the states for the purpose of “protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process” and that the actions of Alaska and the Democrats “thwart ‘the accomplishment and execution’ of federal law.”
“Defendants are aware that Daniel J. Sullivan’s inclusion on the ballot is the result of a conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the electoral process,” the response motion continues. “Turning a blind eye to this scheme would frustrate Congress’s objectives in seeking to protect the integrity of the electoral process.”
The DSCC, for its part, argued the DOJ is relying on the “statement of purpose” section of the NVRA. Under statutory interpretation, such statements are typically regarded as preamble-like, generic, or decorative language that does not have the force of law — contrasted with a statute’s “operative provisions.”
Specifically, the DSCC motion to dismiss argues the DOJ’s election-blocking efforts rely “exclusively on an out-of-context snippet” of “generalized” language from the NVRA that imposes a “duty” on states “to protect the integrity of the electoral process.”
The Trump administration’s response does not directly respond to those “statement of purpose” arguments about “context,” instead focusing on the DSCC’s argument that the NVRA is mainly a “voter registration” law. The DOJ goes on to reiterate the argument that the statute is meant to “protect the integrity of the electoral process.”
“Mr. Sullivan is unquestionably undermining the integrity of Alaska’s election,” the response motion goes on. “The United States has thus stated a claim that Defendants’ conduct is preempted by the NVRA.”
The post ‘They do not deny any aspect’: Trump admin defends against dismissal in election ‘integrity’ case over Alaska Senate race first appeared on Law & Crime.
Recent Comments