Trump Says He Ordered It. His AG Says DOJ Doesn't Do That. Inside the Suit to Freeze Alaska's Senate Count.

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska. Photo: United States Senate (public domain, via Wikimedia Commons).

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, in his official Senate portrait. U.S. Senate photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

On Thursday, Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters it is "not DOJ's intention to, and it's never our intention to, improperly interfere with elections or the state confirmation process or certification process," according to CNBC. That same day his Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit asking a judge to keep Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race. The catch is that the request only kicks in if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses.

On Friday, President Donald Trump cleared up whose idea it was. "I'm the one that said 'do it,'" he told reporters in Fort Myers, Florida, CNBC reported. The Associated Press also reported the president saying he ordered the suit.

So the attorney general says the department doesn't meddle in certification, and the president says he told it to file a case about certification. Both statements are on the record, a day apart.

What Washington is asking a judge to do

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Alaska and signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, names the state, Elections Director Carol Beecher and Alaska's election and ballot-review boards. NBC News reported that it asks the court to block certification if two things are both true: Sen. Sullivan doesn't win, and he would have won had every vote for a second candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan, gone to him under Alaska's ranked-choice count.

The suit wants any affected result held "pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan," CNBC reported. The department didn't explain how anyone would figure out what a voter meant on a secret ballot.

A DOJ spokesperson pointed to the National Voter Registration Act and called the second Sullivan's run a "frivolous candidacy" that "was rejected by Alaska's Director of Elections."

Alaska's own officials saw the problem first

This complaint didn't start in Washington. According to the federal complaint, Alaska's Division of Elections removed Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot in June after finding that his filing "was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy" and was instead made "with a purpose to confuse or mislead." The division pointed to his request to be listed as "Dan Sullivan," his switch to the Republican Party just before he filed, and his work with a consultant the complaint describes as a longtime backer of Democrats.

Alaska's courts put him back on the ballot anyway, NBC reported. In the August primary he took 2.5%, enough to advance under Alaska's top-four system, behind Democrat Mary Peltola at 49.5% and Sen. Sullivan at 41.4%, according to CNBC. On the ballot, the senator now appears as "Dan S. Sullivan" with "registered Republican" and "incumbent" beside his name. The other Sullivan has no party label.

Daniel J. Sullivan has rejected the idea that his run is a sham, according to AP reporting cited by NBC, and he has said he's unhappy with the senator's record. He didn't respond to reporters' requests for comment this week. Trump called the candidacy "a disgrace" and wrote on Truth Social that "Even 1, 2, or 3% could make the difference."

The part conservatives should sit with

Elections in this country are run and certified by state and local officials. The Constitution gives states that job for a reason, and Republicans have spent years telling Washington to keep its hands off how Texas, Georgia or Indiana count votes.

Outside lawyers aren't finding a federal hook here. Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department official under President Obama, told NBC there is no law giving DOJ the power to challenge ballots or delay certification. David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation & Research called the suit "an unprecedented intervention" and said certification "is purely a matter of state law," per CNBC. Neither man is a friend of this administration, but nobody has yet pointed to the statute that would let a federal judge freeze a state's count until Washington decides what voters intended.

Then there's the trigger. The suit doesn't ask Alaska to fix a confusing ballot before Election Day. It asks to pause the result only if one particular candidate comes up short. Whatever you think of the second Sullivan, a rule that lets the Justice Department hold up a state's certification depending on who wins won't stay in Republican hands forever. Someday a Democratic attorney general will get to use it.

Blanche himself seemed to see the problem. "I'm not trying to not have an election certified. Of course not," he said Thursday, while leaving room for what CNBC described as some "doomsday" scenario.

How the campaigns are playing it

Sen. Sullivan's campaign is keeping its distance. "We'll let the DOJ complaint run its course," spokesman Nate Adams said, adding that Alaskans can tell the difference between "a Democrat sideshow" and the senator's record, NBC reported. Peltola said the senator is "using his DC allies to try to keep himself in power," and her campaign has said it had no involvement with either Sullivan.

Alaska's Division of Elections said it is reviewing the complaint and is focused on running the election and "avoiding voter confusion." The Cook Political Report rates the race a toss-up, and the FiftyPlusOne polling average has Peltola up about 2 points, according to CNBC. Election Day is Nov. 3, and control of the Senate could ride on it.

Why a Hoosier should care about Anchorage

The same Justice Department has already told Marion and Lake counties to expect federal poll monitors this fall, as the Hoosier Enquirer reported earlier. Watching polling places is one thing. A federal lawsuit that could stop a state from certifying a result is a much bigger step, and if it works in Alaska, it can be tried in any state with a close race.

If Sen. Sullivan wins on Nov. 3, the case probably goes away quietly. If he loses a close one, a federal judge will be asked to do something no one has shown a statute for, on orders the president says he gave and his attorney general said the department doesn't give. Hoosiers who believe states should run their own elections should keep an eye on what happens next.

Written by Hoosiers, for Hoosiers.