An Alaska judge just slapped down election officials for inventing a “good faith” test that could have quietly stripped voters of their right to choose their own senator.[4]
Story Snapshot
- A superior court judge ruled Alaska election officials unlawfully removed challenger Dan J. Sullivan from the U.S. Senate primary ballot.[4]
- The Division of Elections tried to use a new “good faith” standard that does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or Alaska law.[4]
- The judge said concerns about voter “confusion” must be fixed by ballot design, not by canceling a legally qualified candidate.[6]
- The Alaska Supreme Court then ordered the state to keep the second Dan Sullivan on the ballot while officials sort out how to label him.[7]
Judge Says Election Officials Went Beyond The Law
Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled that Alaska’s Division of Elections broke the law when it kicked retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan off the Republican primary ballot for U.S. Senate. The division claimed Sullivan was a “sham” candidate meant to confuse voters because he shares a name and party with incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan. Matthews wrote that the state relied on a brand-new “good faith” test that is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, Alaska statutes, or its own regulations. He ordered officials to restore Sullivan to the August 18 ballot and treat him as a legally eligible candidate.[1][4]
This Fight Is About Who Sets The Rules For Senate Elections
Matthews noted that the U.S. Constitution lists only three qualifications to run for the Senate: the candidate must be at least 30 years old, must have been a citizen for nine years, and must be a resident of the state when elected. Alaska’s election director added a fourth test, demanding proof of “good faith” intent, and used it to cancel a candidacy that met the written rules. The judge said states cannot quietly add new hurdles for federal office, especially ones not passed by lawmakers. For conservatives who worry about bureaucrats rewriting law, this ruling hits home.[4][15]
“Good Faith” Standard Called Unconstitutional And Unsupported
The Division of Elections argued that Sullivan filed only to trick voters and tilt the race toward Democrat Mary Peltola, citing his recent party switch, a similar campaign website, and work with a consultant tied to Democrats. Matthews responded that the director’s claim that Sullivan sought to “confuse or misguide” voters was not backed by a “preponderance of evidence.” Instead, officials accepted complaints at face value and brushed aside Sullivan’s own statements that he met the legal requirements and wanted new leadership after 12 years of the incumbent in office. For the court, suspicion and politics were not enough to erase a candidate.[1][4][11][13]
Court Says Fix Confusing Ballots, Not Candidate Choice
The judge agreed that the election director does have power over ballot format, but said that power stops at design choices, not canceling voters’ options. Alaska law lets officials design ballots for “fairness, simplicity and clarity,” which can include changing how names appear or adding instructions to help voters tell candidates apart. Matthews wrote that this design authority “does not authorize the removal of a candidate who satisfies the legal qualifications for office.” In plain terms, if voters might be confused by two Dan Sullivans, the fix is a clearer ballot, not a back-room veto of one of them.[6][17]
Alaska Supreme Court Backs Eligibility, Keeps Second Sullivan On Ballot
The state rushed to appeal, asking the Alaska Supreme Court to restore the director’s power to police “ballot fairness” by removing supposed “sham” candidates. On Monday, the justices issued a brief order upholding the lower court and directing that Dan J. Sullivan must stay on the ballot for Alaska’s U.S. Senate seat. The high court sent the case back to the Division of Elections only to decide how the challenger’s name will be shown on the ballot under existing design laws.
🧵 🚨 The Alaska Supreme Court has upheld a lower court order requiring election officials to restore U.S. Senate candidate Dan J. Sullivan Jr. to the primary ballot, rejecting the state's effort to keep him off in response to claims that he ran to confuse voters. https://t.co/Phhb6DForF
— Lori 🇺🇸 (@LoriH_007) June 30, 2026
That means Alaskans will see both Dan Sullivans listed in the Republican primary and will be trusted to sort out which one they support.[1][2][6][7][8]
Why This Matters For Conservatives Nationwide
This Alaska case should matter to every reader who cares about the Constitution and limited government. A state office tried to invent a vague “good faith” test and used it to strip a challenger off the ballot without clear legal authority. The courts pushed back and reinforced a basic rule: unelected officials do not get to decide which legally qualified candidates voters are allowed to see. In an era of lawfare and politicized agencies, this ruling is a reminder that written law, not political hunches, must govern our elections.[4][5]
Sources:
[1] Web – Alaska Judge Overrules Election Officials, Lets ‘Fake’ Dan Sullivan …
[2] Web – Two Dan Sullivans to Appear on Alaska Senate Ballot, State High …
[4] Web – Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan can face challenge from other … – Politico
[5] Web – Alaska court rules against exclusion of Daniel J. Sullivan from ballot
[6] Web – The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that a man with the same …
[7] Web – Dan J. Sullivan has filed an appeal challenging his removal from …
[8] Web – Dan Sullivan (Alaska U.S. Senate candidate) – Ballotpedia
[11] Web – The Alaska Division of Elections says, in a preliminary review, that …
[13] Web – The Division of Elections disqualified Dan Sullivan of Petersburg …
[15] Web – 2026 U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections overview – Facebook
[17] Web – Types of Election Cases – U.S. Senate
