Federal judge tosses Trump's Alaska lawsuit as an attempt to unlawfully interfere with a midterm election, while possibly taking another step toward authoritarian rule

(Newsweek, Facebook)

The Trump administration's attempt to interfere in Alaska's U.S. Senate election was not just designed to increase the chances that a Republican would win, thereby furthering White House hopes that it could continue dealing with a Congress where the GOP still controlled at least one chamber. It also was intended to move the United States closer to authoritarian rule. That is the conclusion of Adam Klasfeld who writes at All Rise News under the headline "Rising this week: the sacred, secret ballot":

Pro-democracy electorates have rejected authoritarian rulers this year in Hungary, Serbia, and Brazil.

Israel appears to be on the cusp of ending Benjamin Netanyahu’s more than 18-year tenure as prime minister, which he has used to consolidate power, weaken the country’s judiciary, and attempt to outrun growing domestic and international criminal liability. Opposition Jewish and Arab parties signaled a willingness to form a coalition, which — if finalized — would mark another blow to the global forces of illiberalism.

On Tuesday, it’s U.S. voters’ turn.

Will Americans follow suit and reject Trump's authoritarian overtures? If they don't, many observers (including yours truly) fear that our democracy might swirl down the drain, never to be seen again -- at least as we have come to know it. Klasfeld writes:

Critical to that effort will be the cornerstone of any free society: the sacred, secret ballot. No government with democratic legitimacy would ever propose asking a court to let agents of the state interrogate citizens about how they voted, but that is exactly what the Trump regime has asked a judge to allow it to do in Alaska.

On Sunday, a federal judge emphatically rejected that effort because the relief that it requested would violate a sacred right.

The Trump Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason to block any Alaska Senate election outcome that ends in the defeat of the Republican incumbent “pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan.”

Upon what did Judge Gleason base her ruling? Klasfeld addresses the legal particulars, and it's not a stretch to say she might have saved the rule of law and American democracy -- at least for now. Who knows what schemes the White House might be planning in the event Democrats wind up controlling the Senate? Klasfeld writes: 

Judge Gleason found that “requiring the segregation of ballots cast by voters for Daniel J. Sullivan so that these voters can be further investigated by law enforcement is not a remedy that this Court can or should order as it clearly violates Alaskans’ right to a secret ballot.”

To establish standing, a party must request relief that a judge has the power to grant: a concept known as “redressability,” but what Trump Justice Department lawyers asked for was anathema to a free society.

“More fundamentally, the United States provides no workable plan as to how it proposes to segregate ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan on Election Day and then conduct a court-ordered unspecified ‘investigation’ of those ballots in a manner that would preserve voter secrecy,” the ruling states. 

Why has the secret ballot come to be seen as "sacred" by those who value and defend election integrity? A case styled McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) provides insight. Consider these words from the opinion . . .

The term "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution makes the First Amendment applicable to the States. The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in relevant part: "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Referring to that Clause in his separate opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), Justice Brandeis stated that "all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. The right of free speech, the right to teach and the right of assembly are, of course, fundamental rights." Id., at 373 (Brandeis, J., concurring). Although the text of the First Amendment provides only that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ," Justice Brandeis' view has been embedded in our law ever since. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 779-780 (1978); see also Stevens, The Bill of Rights: A Century of Progress, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 13, 20, 25-26 (1992).

In short, the right to a secret ballot is derived from the fundamental "liberty" rights associated with the First and Fourteenth Amendments -- and it is perhaps most closely related to freedom of speech. The ACLU, a plaintiff in the Alaska case, seemed to be thinking along those lines in its brief, as Klasfeld reports:

“Imagine if the federal executive could pluck a few words like ‘election integrity’ from some statutory preamble and, on that basis alone, bend the machinery of state elections to his will, preemptively blocking certification of a U.S. Senate election to protect his preferred candidate from defeat and then subjecting voters to a law-enforcement-led inquest about who they ‘really’ supported,” ACLU attorney Ari J. Savitzky wrote in a blistering filing. “Imagine that world and ask whether it is what the framers wanted or precisely what they most feared.”

On Oct. 30, Alaska’s top federal prosecutor Michael Heyman signaled at a press conference that he was willing to do just that.

“Federal and state law enforcement, including both the Alaska State Troopers on my right and the FBI on my left, are working to make sure that your vote counts in a way that you meant and intended it to count,” U.S. Attorney Heyman declared at a press conference.

The Trump Justice Department liked that plan so much that it publicized his comments online.  

Unfortunately for the White House, Heyman's view did not carry the day. It did, however, capture the attention of the ACLU and Judge Gleason, as Klasfeld notes:

Citing these remarks, the ACLU’s motion states: “Chillingly, the United States also does not deny that the relief it seeks here would eviscerate voters’ constitutional right to a secret ballot.”

Judge Gleason agreed, quoting Heyman’s remarks at the press conference and making ballot secrecy a central part of her ruling. She said that, because of this defect, any attempt to revise the complaint would be “futile.”

The New York Times has uncovered powerful evidence that top aides for Democratic candidate Mary Peltola and lawyers for the DSCC engaged in a ballot-stacking scheme apparently designed to sow confusion among voters regarding two Republican candidates named Dan Sullivan. While calling the move "wrong and strategically boneheaded," Klasfeld also stated, "It’s a legal and common ploy in U.S. politics, being exploited by Trump toward authoritarian ends." Klasfeld provides additional reasons the Trump argument fails as a matter of law, while pointing out hypocrisy emanating from the White House and the GOP:

As a legal matter, the state of Alaska points out that the revelations “add nothing.” That’s because the Supreme Court of Alaska decided that it doesn’t matter whether Dan J. Sullivan was a “good faith” candidate or a spoiler dreamed up in campaign war rooms in Anchorage or Washington, D.C. A candidate who meets the legal and constitutional requirements is allowed to run, end stop, and Republicans have run the same disreputable playbook numerous times across the country — including against Peltola recently by supporting a fringe candidate who was incarcerated in New York.

“Countless similarly questionable candidacies surely exist throughout the country in every election,” Alaska Assistant Attorney General Margaret Paton Walsh noted in a legal brief.

In Florida, Republicans successfully won an election by backing a candidate with the same surname as then-Democratic state Sen. Jose Javier Rodriguez, who lost by 32 votes to his GOP opponent. The results stood. What’s more, the scheme was legal and only led to a successful prosecution because of the illegal campaign contribution that came with it.

Until now, no federal government has suggested that a race could be nullified because of that common practice. 

“Pursuing ‘election integrity’ by sending armed government agents to question voters about how they chose to mark their ballots would be Orwellian and, indeed, illegal,” the ACLU told the judge. “Congress has forbidden such interference with voting many times over.” 

The Trump administration reportedly has already filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. That should not get very far, but perhaps it will cause a post-election delay that might work in the White House's favor. In Klasfeld's view, this is just another example of our current president (and his party) acting in ways that run contrary to American norms:

Whatever the justifications, democracies do not propose, conduct, or tenaciously seek investigations of how voters intended to cast their ballots. Dictatorships do, but their requests typically come before captured judiciaries and controlled populations. That is not currently the case in the United States.

From polls to early voting records to humiliating courtroom defeats, the architects of the latest election interference scheme appear to be heading for a strong rebuke on Tuesday — in the courts and the ballot box.

Election-law expert says no other administration would consider criminal charges in Alaska Senate case; but with Trump's weaponized DOJ, anything can happen

(WOWK 13 News, Facebook)

We are just four days from the 2026 midterm elections, and a New York Times story about a "ballot stacking" scheme designed to boost the chances of Democrat Mary Peltola has roiled Alaska's U.S. Senate race. One of the nation's foremost authorities on election law is following the case and concludes that it shows all of the signs of packing a serious political punch. What about a legal punch, as in a criminal court case that could cast doubt on the midterm results? Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA who runs the Election Law Blog and is a frequent contributor at the site, does not see that happening -- partly because the U.S. Constitution places the administration of congressional elections in the hands of states, not the federal government. That should put a crimp in any plans the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) might have to turn Alaska in favor of Republicans. 

What other thoughts does Hasen have about the Alaska controversy, which essentially boils down to possible voter confusion caused by having two "Dan Sullivans" on the ballot? Under the headline "The legal implications (or not) of The New York Times bombshell story alleging Democrats recruited the second "Dan Sullivan" to run in the Alaska U.S. Senate race," Hasen writes:

Today’s New York Times story, if true, strikes me as a political bombshell: despite public denials of a connection, people associated with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Alaska Mary Peltola and Democratic Party officials recruited the second “Dan Sullivan” to run against the incumbent Republican U.S. Senator from Alaska, Dan S. Sullivan. The hope would be to siphon votes away from Sen. Sullivan. (As a political play, I’m skeptical that this would work, given Alaska’s ranked choice voting approach would allow ranking both Dan Sullivans as 1 and 2, thereby not helping Peltola.)

But what, if any, are the legal implications of the story (if true)?

To begin with, I don’t think it has any bearing at all on the current litigation in which the U.S. Department of Justice seeks to delay certification of the race if Dan S. Sullivan narrowly loses on grounds of purported voter confusion. The lawsuit is not going anywhere for any number of reasons, but even assuming DOJ’s theory that it can sue to block certification, it is irrelevant as to why voters might face confusion over the two Dan Sullivans. (This has not stopped DOJ from now supporting DSCC intervention so that it can get discovery over a potential “conspiracy”). [Disclosure: I will soon be filing a motion to file an amicus brief on my own behalf supporting the State of Alaska in this case.]

Second, if there is any evidence that anyone lied under oath about the cooperation between Democrats and Dan J. Sullivan, that could be grounds for a perjury prosecution. So far I’m not aware of any such allegation in the case.

Third, this leaves the question whether this could be prosecuted as some kind of conspiracy against voters. To begin with, it is regular practice for people to support candidates for bad motives: Republicans boosting Greens and Democrats boosting Libertarians. It turns out that Elon Musk alone may have bankrolled left-leaning Cornel West’s quest to get on the 2024 presidential eiection ballot. The effort in Alaska is just an extreme version of that. From The Times’s story: “Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska. But this operation, which has not been reported before, reveals the lengths to which Democrats went to seek advantage in a Senate race that could determine control of the chamber.”

That might not stop DOJ from trying to prosecute it. But I think such a claim would fail. As Shelby Wayment and I wrote before these revelations came to light: “In Alaska…President Trump and AG Blanche have said there could be a crime and we know there has been a federal criminal investigation; the closest we could come up with is this Wall Street Journal (WSJ) column alleging Dan J. Sullivan conspired with Democrats to deprive voters of their civil rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. The DOJ’s complaint does not state a claim of 18 U.S.C. § 241; instead the DOJ relies on a vague statement of purpose from the NVRA (52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3)). If DOJ tries to prosecute Dan J., his candidacy is likely protected by the First Amendment. (The case is easily distinguishable from Mackey, that the WSJ authors relied upon, which involved a lie about when, where or how people vote; Dan J. Sullivan, so far as we know, did not lie about his name or anything else).” 

In a post dated August 18, 2026, Hasen noted that the Alaska case raises a wide variety of possible legal issues -- includng free speech,  conspiracy, wire fraud, civil rights, and more. But ultimately, Hasen concludes, the case boils down to potentially prosecuting someone for having dishonest motives in running for office. Is that the kind of act the government can, or should, seek to criminalize? Hasen has serious doubts, and he writes:

Now we cannot be sure what Dan J.’s motivations are (see this NY Times report with lots of reasons but no ironclad evidence to think J. is actually running to help the Democrat). But let’s assume he’s running to help Peltola.

If Dan J. ultimately is charged with violating the Ku Klux Klan Act (18 U.S.C. s 241), which punishes a conspiracy to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State. . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States,” I think J. would have a very strong First Amendment defense (and likely for the wire fraud claims too, but I don’t know enough about what the basis for those charges might be). 

There have been cases involving lying to people about the mechanics of elections–when, where or how people vote–most recently and famously in the Douglas Mackey (Ricky Vaughn) case. Mackey was convicted of violating section 241 by tricking voters on Twitter into “voting by text” (not a thing) for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. I filed an amicus brief arguing that such a prosecution is consistent with the First Amendment, and my friend and colleague Eugene Volokh filed on the other side, pointing especially to the vagueness of the statute. (We both agree, though, that narrow laws aimed at lying about voting mechanics are likely constitutional). The Second Circuit held there was no conspiracy as required by section 241, reversing Mackey’s conviction, and it did not reach the First Amendment issue. 

But this is not a case about tricking someone about the mechanics of the election not to vote. Nor is it a case of impersonation: J. is really named “Daniel Sullivan.” It is not even a case about J. telling a campaign lie. (Volokh says the First Amendment should prevent the state from criminalizing such lies: “on balance it seems to me that the traditional approach of candidates pointing out their rivals’ lies, often supplemented by the media chiming in, is the least bad of a bad set of options”).

This is a case about someone running for office with impure motives who is lucky enough to have a name that could confuse some voters. The solution to this problem is counterspeech (as in: “Don’t vote for J.! Vote for the real Senator Daniel S. Sullivan”.)

I don’t see how the government could criminalize his running for office while  having impure motives. And if it could do so, then it could be a crime every time that the Republican Party backs a Green Party candidate, or Democrats support a MAGA candidate in a primary in the hopes that the candidate would be weaker against a Democrat in the general election. This stuff happens all the time.

It would be quite dangerous for the state to start criminally prosecuting people for their political beliefs and secret motives. Are we going to put people on trial and probe their political allegiances?

I expect that if J. is indicted, these First Amendment issues would loom quite large. Indeed, I would expect any other administration’s DOJ -- Democrat or Republican -- not to even consider charges in a case like this, given those free-speech issues. But the Trump DOJ has been weaponized against the president’s political opponents, and so we will have to watch what happens.

Mary Peltola, the Democrat who leads polling in Alaska Senate race, asks judge for quick dismissal of lawsuit where Trump seeks a remedy only if Republican loses

(KTVU Fox News, Facebook)

What newspaper yesterday ensured that it would win the 2016 award for Most Irrelevant Article of the Year? That "honor" goes to The New York Times, which long has been cited as the most respected daily news publication in the country. The paper, however, did nothing to burnish its reputation with a story dated 10/28/26 about the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The Times undoubtedly maintains a lofty status in the journalism world, but readers have reason to question the paper's news judgment after it ran a piece suggesting "operatives" for Senate candidate Mary Peltola (D-AK) engaged in dubious (maybe even unlawful) behavior by spending months recruiting candidates to peel votes from Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent. The effort even produced an alternative Dan Sullivan -- Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., who resides in a small fishing village and has no experience in electoral politics -- in a seeming attempt to sow confusion among Alaska voters. 

All of this might sound sketchy, but even The Times acknowledges that it is perfectly legal -- perhaps even a time-honored tradition practiced by both parties, especially in the rough-and-tumble world of Alaska politics. You have to read to the eighth paragraph to learn there is nothing unlawful about the described behavior. (A well-known legal blog, whose contributing writers are law professors, law-school deans, or both, notes that the Peltola plot almost certainly was legal, and we will have more on that shortly.) Why did such a prestigious newspaper pursue a story about conduct that is common practice and is not illegal? Applying my tin-foil hat for a moment, I wonder if an "operative" from the right side of the political spectrum pitched the idea and maybe even pressured The Times to run with it.

What's all the fuss about? Let's start by taking a look at The Times article under the headline "Inside Democrats' secret effort to stack Alaska's ballot." The NY Times piece probably is blocked by a paywall. As an alternative, readers interested in checking out the entire article probably should click this link to the Seattle Times, which appears to be part of the New York paper's syndication service. We will present all the relevant information in a not-so-relevant story below, as Kellen Browning writes:

In the summer of 2025, a staffer for Mary Peltola, the Alaska Democrat who was eyeing a run for Senate, received unusual instructions from top campaign aides: Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can.

The staffer complied, combing through voter records to produce a list of Dan Sullivans from across the state.

This was no random request. Dan S. Sullivan is the name of the state’s Republican senator. And if the Peltola campaign or its allies could track down and persuade another Dan Sullivan to run for Senate, the confusion could cost the senator crucial votes on the state’s unusual, four-person ballot.

The plan worked. This spring, a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by air and sea, announced his candidacy for Senate. His name was Dan J. Sullivan. 

The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory. 

The mention of a "potential lawsuit against the campaign" provides a clue about how The Times article came to be published. (more on that in a moment) For now, we have this from Kellen Browning:

The endeavor, which was internally called the ballot composition project, involved secret trips to far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs.

It also involved the Peltola campaign’s lawyers, as well as senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which directs the party’s campaign strategy in Senate races across the country. From Washington to Anchorage, those advisers participated in regular conversations about the effort and even considered forming a new political party to draw conservatives onto the ballot.

Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska. But this operation, which has not been reported before, reveals the lengths to which Democrats went to seek advantage in a Senate race that could determine control of the chamber.

With that, we get to the crux of the matter: The New York Times has invested considerable time and resources reporting on conduct that is both common and legal. Does that amount to a journalism case of "much ado about nothing"? That's how it looks from here. But that does not mean the story is complete. A report from Adam Klasfeld at All Rise News adds important context: In a post dated 10/26/26, Klasfeld writes under the headline "Dismiss Trump's 'lawless' attack on Alaska's election, judge asked; Senate candidate Mary Peltola's campaign seeks a ruling this week":

Alaskans shouldn’t have the Trump administration’s “lawless” attack on the U.S. Senate race hanging over their heads on Election Day, the race’s leading candidate wrote in a new court filing.

“The Court should not allow this lawsuit to hang like the Sword of Damocles over the ongoing election, lending false legitimacy to the President’s and the Attorney General’s ongoing efforts to spread false narratives about Alaska’s elections as voting continues and as results begin to be tabulated next week,” the campaign for Democratic candidate Mary Peltola wrote in a motion to expedite the case.

Peltola holds a narrow lead in polling averages, making her the favorite to become Alaska’s first Democratic U.S. senator in more than a decade.

The Trump administration’s lawsuit asked a federal judge to block the certification of Alaska’s results if Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, loses. Peltola’s campaign, Alaskans for Mary, asked a judge to dismiss it “as soon as possible this week.” 

Klasfeld provides two critical pieces of information here: (1) Trump has been asked numerous times if he will accept the outcomes of the midterm elections. His answer has been, "I will accept the results if the election is honest." Trump never seems to clarify what he means by that. But language in his Alaska lawsuit indicates he sees an honest election as one where the Republican candidate wins -- and a dishonest election is one where the Republican loses; (2) The Peltola campaign is asking a federal judge to dismiss Trump's complaint "as soon as possible this week," after allowing time for the filing of motions and responses on Tuesday and Wednesday. That means a decision could come at any moment, most likely today or tomorrow. We will be on alert, and we invite you to stay with us. (Note: A dismissal would be a significant win for Peltola, but it might not mean the case is over; I would not be surprised if Trump seeks an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. That likely would be on the court's "shadow docket," so there is no telling how that might end up.) Let's check out more insights from Adam Klasfeld:

There are two Dan Sullivans running for the U.S. Senate in Alaska, and the state’s judiciary already has determined that both are qualified candidates.

Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, the GOP incumbent, has been in office since 2015, and he is sharing a ballot with Dan J. Sullivan, a former independent with conservative views who changed his affiliation to the Republican Party.

Alaska’s Director of Elections Carol Beecher, a longtime Republican, previously tried to disqualify the latter Sullivan and lost her effort up to Alaska’s Supreme Court, which found that both candidates were qualified to compete in the race under the state’s laws and constitution. 

But the state’s courts made clear that Alaska’s election administrators could address any confusion through the design of the ballots themselves. Alaska’s Division of Elections acted accordingly: Ballots received by voters show Dan S. Sullivan marked as the “Registered Republican” and the “Incumbent.” 

Donald Trump, and the agencies under his control, refused to accept the answer of the state’s judiciary over the state’s administration of elections.

Despite the crystal-clear ballot design, the lawsuit claims to combat “voter confusion.”

“DOJ does not allege any facts that would render this concern plausible rather than merely possible, particularly given a ballot design that identifies Senator Sullivan as the incumbent, lists Mr. Sullivan without any party affiliation, and uses both candidates’ middle initials, which are different,” Peltola’s campaign noted in its motion. 

After the filing of the lawsuit, Trump made clear to reporters: “I'm the one that said [file] it,” and the case is being led by attorneys on his former campaign payroll. 

The lawsuit was written by Stanley Woodward, the department’s third highest official whose firm was paid $1.4 million by Trump’s political action committees for representing Trump’s co-defendant and key witnesses in the classified-documents case.

Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose firm made more than $10 million from Trump’s PACs for his work as Trump’s criminal-defense attorney, didn’t deny that his former client told him to file it in an interview on Face the Nation.

“I will not talk about communications I have with the president," Blanche told host Margaret Brennan, avoiding her question on Sunday. 

The governing law in this case seems to be straightforward, clearly pointing in favor of the Peltola campaign -- at this point. But that does not mean the matter is without possible complications, Klasfeld reports:

The Trump administration sued the same election administrators in Alaska who initially challenged the candidacy of Dan J. Sullivan, creating the possibility that both parties would effectively serve the same interests.

That’s why several parties have sought to intervene in the litigation, including registered voters, civil society groups, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Alaskans for Mary, which is Peltola’s official campaign entity.

“DOJ filed this lawsuit in the midst of the ongoing general election, less than two weeks before election day, raising issues governed exclusively by state law that were definitively resolved by the Alaska Supreme Court months ago,” Alaskans for Mary wrote in its most recent motion. “DOJ seeks an unprecedented order precluding certification of the U.S. Senate election if the candidate the President favors loses narrowly.” 

Trump's successful effort to ensure the DOJ is populated with loyalists and sycophants, as opposed to the relatively competent and objective prosecutors who were present when he lost in 2020, probably will color the current case from beginning to end. Klasfeld writes:

After the 2020 presidential election, most attorneys from the Department of Justice refused to participate in Trump’s campaign of election subversion. Former DOJ employee Jeff Clark attempted to falsely announce that the Department was investigating allegedly “significant irregularities,” only to be rebuffed by higher-ups inside the agency. Clark’s participation in Trump’s attack on the election led disciplinary authorities to recommend his disbarment.

Now, the Justice Department is led by Trump’s former attorneys and allies.

The Civil Division chief Harmeet Dhillon, one of Trump’s 2020 campaign lawyers, filed lawsuits from coast to coast seeking to seize sensitive voter-roll information, only to suffer 27 consecutive defeats in the federal courts.

The Ninth Circuit appears equally likely to dismiss the Trump Justice Department’s attempt to disqualify 20,000 ballots in California by claiming — without evidence — that they were sent to “likely” noncitizens. A three-judge panel dominated by Trump appointees suggested that they were unlikely to intervene.

In the lower court, the California ballot lawsuit is pending before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, the first judge to have found that Trump likely committed federal crimes during his 2020 election subversion. In 2022, Judge Carter found that the crime-fraud exception overcame any privilege Trump may have had with now-disbarred attorney John Eastman.

“Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Judge Carter wrote at the time. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law-enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.” 

Political tension hangs over the Alaska case, along with the very real threat of violence that has come to mark U.S. campaigns and elections -- an ever-present reminder of an intensely divided electorate. Klasfeld writes:

In 2020, the blizzard of lawsuits by Trump and his allies failed in court, but they fueled more radical attacks on the election later, including the attempted intimidation of state administrators, the false elector scheme and the Jan. 6 insurrection.

When asked directly by CNN’s Dana Bash whether Trump’s lawsuits were setting the stage for more political violence by his supporters, Blanche laughed off the question. But the threat of violence is real.

The Brennan Center’s survey this year found that 14 percent of election officials reported receiving threats as of this past February. Trump has escalated his misinformation campaign since that time with the full backing of government attorneys under his control.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Louise Gleason, an Obama appointee, hasn’t yet indicated whether she will fast-track the case in time to potentially dismiss the Alaska litigation before Election Day.