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.