Democrats and voting rights groups move to dismiss DOJ's bid to block Alaska Senate certification

Key points

• The DOJ filed a lawsuit on October 22 seeking to prevent Alaska from certifying the Senate race if Dan S. Sullivan loses, citing potential voter confusion from a rival named Daniel J. Sullivan.
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Peltola’s campaign filed a motion to dismiss, labeling the suit an 'unprecedented pre-emptive strike' on democratic elections.
• Voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Common Cause, are seeking to join the case as defendants, arguing the federal government cannot dictate ballot layout or candidate eligibility.
• President Trump confirmed he personally ordered the lawsuit, stating, 'I’m the one that said do it,' while Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski criticized the DOJ’s action.
• Legal experts note the DOJ’s reliance on the National Voter Registration Act lacks precedent for halting state certification, especially given Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system which already distinguishes between the two candidates.

Background

This legal battle follows earlier developments where Alaska election officials initially removed Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot in June, a decision later overturned by state courts. The current dispute occurs amid broader tensions between the Trump administration and state election officials, including previous lawsuits regarding voter files and mail voting. The Alaska Senate race is considered a critical battleground for Democrats seeking to flip a Republican seat, with polls showing the contest as a toss-up. Recent coverage also highlighted concerns over the conduct of Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who has taken a prominent role in defending the administration’s election-related legal strategies.

How outlets are covering it

NBC News and CNBC emphasize the legal and procedural arguments, highlighting that the DOJ’s action is unprecedented and lacks clear statutory authority. They note the bipartisan backlash, including from Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, and the concerns that the suit could disenfranchise voters. Politico frames the move as part of a broader 'election power grab' by the Trump administration, describing it as a 'desperation play' with 'zero basis in law.' CNN focuses on the role of Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who has been at the forefront of the administration’s legal agenda, and notes the internal tensions within the DOJ regarding these controversial positions. All sources agree that the case is legally dubious and that the DOJ’s intervention in a state-run election is highly unusual.

Why it matters

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for federal involvement in state election certification, potentially affecting future elections. If the DOJ’s bid succeeds, it could disenfranchise voters in Alaska and other states, undermining the integrity of the democratic process. The case also highlights the growing tensions between the federal government and state election officials, as well as the potential for legal challenges to be used as political tools. The broader implications for election law and the role of the DOJ in elections are significant, with potential consequences for the 2026 midterms and beyond.

What to watch

The court has not yet set a hearing date for the DOJ’s lawsuit, but the case is expected to be heard before Election Day on November 3. The Democratic groups and voting rights organizations are seeking to intervene and dismiss the case, while the DOJ is likely to defend its position. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for the certification of the Alaska Senate race and potentially for other states. Legal experts and observers will be watching closely to see how the court rules on the DOJ’s request and whether the case sets a precedent for federal involvement in state elections.