President Donald Trump’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit Thursday seeking to block former Democratic Rep. Mary Pertola’s victory in the 2026 U.S. Senate election. If you’re confused by this development, you should be. Because the election won’t be held for more than a week.
The case stems from a bizarre candidacy that could undermine incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan’s reelection bid against Pertola. A man named Dan J. Sullivan also gained a spot on the ballot, and Republicans feared no-Senator Sullivan’s presence on the ballot could deceive voters hoping to vote for an incumbent into voting for a non-senator.
In the abstract, this is a legitimate concern. But there are two reasons to doubt that non-Senator Sullivan will be able to attract many voters who actually want to vote Republican. According to a sample of the ballots released by the Alaska Department of Elections, Sen. Sullivan will be identified as a “registered Republican” and an “incumbent member,” so voters will be told which Dan Sullivan they should vote for if they wish to be re-elected to the Senate.
Additionally, Alaska uses a ranked-choice voting system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, and the losing candidate’s votes are redistributed to the voter’s next choice. So Alaska voters who want to re-elect Dan Sullivan, who is actually a senator, but are confused about which Dan Sullivan is the current senator, can simply list Dan Sullivan as their top two choices, and the ranked-choice system should ensure that their vote is counted as a vote for Sen. Sullivan (and against Pertola).
Additionally, the question of whether non-Senator Sullivan can appear on the ballot has prompted lawsuits. Initially, the Republican-led Alaska Department of Elections sought to disqualify the non-senator because it concluded he did not seek Senate election in “good faith.” Non-Senator Sullivan sued, and an Alaska court ordered that his candidacy be reinstated because “the Department’s decision to exclude Mr. Sullivan from the primary was based on a ‘good faith’ requirement that does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, Alaska statutes, or implementing regulations adopted by the Department”—that is, there was actually no law preventing a non-Senator from running, even if he was knowingly a candidate.
Last June, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court order. If Republicans believe the decision violates federal law, they can ask the Elections Division, also run by Republicans, to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Instead, they seemed to have shelved the issue until less than two weeks before Election Day, Trump’s Justice Department filed a new federal lawsuit claiming that non-Senator Sullivan’s presence on the ballot was somehow unlawful and asking a federal court to preemptively block Pertola from winning the upcoming election. Trump said he personally notified the Justice Department of the lawsuit.
It’s hard to find a real legal argument, let alone a persuasive one, in the complaint launching the Trump Justice Department lawsuit. Trump’s lawsuit also concerns the so-called “Purcell The “principle” — a concept ironically reiterated by the Supreme Court on the same day the Trump administration filed its lawsuit — says federal courts should not get involved in election-related disputes when an election is imminent.
In other words, the Trump administration’s attempts to overturn a Democratic victory that has yet to occur are likely to fail. But the mere existence of this new lawsuit, the so-called United States v. AlaskaIt’s an ominous sign that the Trump administration will use every tool in its shed to overturn Democratic victories in the upcoming election.
So, what is the actual legal basis of this case? Alaska case?
Describing the Justice Department’s complaint in this case as a “legal” document is a bit of a stretch, as the complaint does not identify any laws that may have been violated by non-Senator Sullivan or the State of Alaska, but vaguely alludes to the legal origins of the use of terms like “good faith.”
Specifically, the Justice Department pointed to a federal law that has four purposes, one of which is to “protect the integrity of the election process.” It also points to the Supreme Court judgment bullock v carter (1972), which states that “States have an interest, if not a duty, in protecting the integrity of their political processes against frivolous or fraudulent candidatures.”
But the statute cited by Trump’s lawyers, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, does not address which candidates’ names should appear on the ballot. As the name suggests, this is a voter registration law that imposes requirements on states, such as requiring them to register voters after they obtain a driver’s license.
Likewise, although bullock Nothing in the opinion suggests that sharing the names of other candidates makes someone’s candidacy appear frivolous or fraudulent, although there is a line indicating that states may enact laws targeting “frivolous or fraudulent candidates.” The decision itself involved charging unusually high fees to candidates for public office in Texas, which the court concluded was unconstitutional.
A reference to “reckless or fraudulent candidates” was also added to clarify that states still have some power to regulate ballot access. although bullock The opinion concluded that Texas’ fees were too high, while also suggesting that states might impose more reasonable filing fees on candidates to discourage unserious candidates from seeking office. For example, the state of Alaska charges a modest $100 filing fee to U.S. Senate candidates.
In other words, the Trump Justice Department’s entire argument appears to be based on the fact that it identified two legal sources that used the word “good faith” in situations that bear little resemblance to the law. Alaska case.
Still, Trump’s lawyers claimed the court must block Alaska from certifying Pertola’s victory “pending an investigation to determine whether the votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan should have been cast for Senator Sullivan.”
The lawsuit also violates one of Republicans’ favorite legal doctrines
Even if Trump’s Justice Department had a persuasive argument that it was illegal to put non-Senator Sullivan on the ballot, they should still lose Alaska Because they waited too long to file the case.
exist Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006), the Supreme Court warned that “court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, may themselves cause confusion among voters and thus lead voters to stay away from the polls,” adding that this “risk will increase” as Election Day approaches. Recent decisions, many of which were joined only by Republicans on the Supreme Court, read something like this “Purcell The doctrine fairly broadly prohibits federal courts from issuing election-related decisions in the months leading up to an election. Judge Brett Kavanaugh even claimed Purcell Prevents federal courts from issuing election-related decisions as early as nine months before the election date.
judgment cited by supreme court Purcell It is now common to shut down lower court orders changing state election rules in the weeks leading up to an election. For example, on Thursday, the court relied on Purcell principle blocks a lower court order that would have made it easier for college students to vote in New Hampshire. The court began its decision with these words: “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts generally should not change election rules on the eve of an election.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s Justice Department waited until less than two weeks before Election Day to file a lawsuit in an attempt to preemptively invalidate Pertola’s victory. if Purcell Regardless, this must mean that a federal court cannot force Alaska to remove candidates from the ballot just days before a federal election.