An Anchorage judge heard oral arguments on Thursday in a case poised to decide whether the Alaska Division of Elections has the authority to remove a candidate with the same name as the incumbent from the race for U.S. Senate.

The court is expediting the case and a decision is expected Friday. Any appeals are expected to be before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday, ahead of a looming deadline for the division to print primary ballots no later than noon on Tuesday, June 30.

The division made the unprecedented decision to remove Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, from the ballot on June 15, citing a “preponderance of evidence” the candidate had not filed a “good faith candidacy” and filed with the purpose to “confuse or mislead” voters.

Image

Sullivan appealed that decision, saying he meets all eligibility requirements to run for office. He challenged the state’s decision as unlawful, and requested the court overturn the decision and restore his candidacy on the Alaska ballot for U.S. Senate.

In opening arguments, attorneys for the Division of Elections defended the decision to disqualify Sullivan from the ballot. They said the state has a duty to protect voters from confusion, and that the state is not obligated to place a candidate on the ballot where evidence shows the candidate is seeking to “compromise the fairness of the ballot.”

Sullivan was one of sixteen candidates to file to run for one of Alaska’s U.S. Senate seats, challenging Republican incumbent U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan in the high-stakes election that could determine the control of the U.S. Senate after the November elections. One candidate has withdrawn since then, leaving 14 challengers, including former Democratic U.S. Representative Mary Peltola. The November election results will determine a candidate for a six-year term.

Critics of Sullivan said he was trying to confuse voters to the benefit of Peltola, the Democratic front-runner. Officials with the Peltola campaign and the Alaska Democratic Party have said they have no affiliation with either Sullivan.

Attorneys representing the Petersburg Sullivan and the Alaska Division of Elections went head to head in livestreamed Superior Court hearing, where over 300 viewers tuned in but others were not able to watch the stream. Officials with the court later apologized calling it a “record-breaking” livestream and posted a recording on their website.

Jeffrey Robinson, representing Sullivan, opened his argument reiterating that Sullivan met all the constitutional requirements to run for office: at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen, and an inhabitant of Alaska if and when elected.

“Mr. Sullivan unambiguously meets each of these criteria,” Robinson said. “As seen in previous cases, states are not allowed to add to those qualifications.”

Image

He cited the case where the Alaska Democratic Party sought to remove Eric Hafner, a U.S. House candidate imprisoned out of state, and the division did not investigate his motives but found he met the qualifications to run for office. Robinson argued the state has subjectively and unlawfully added additional criteria for Sullivan, including restrictions on his perceived political goals, how he presents his name, campaign and his party affiliation.

“Here the division imposed a substantive mental state-based qualification for U.S. Senate candidates in Alaska, and then it cynically and arbitrarily determined that Mr. Sullivan did not meet that qualification,” he said.

Robinson said it’s up to political campaigns to distinguish candidates and educate voters. He agreed the division has the authority to make sure candidates appearing on the ballot do not confuse voters, and noted that there are state regulations that offer solutions, like adding middle initials. But he said there are no “good faith” requirements, nor any other regulations that would give the division such broad authority to look at a candidate’s motives for office.

“They have no explicit authority in situations like this to even look into a candidate’s motives. Any subjective standard for candidates imposed by the division necessarily erodes the trust of voters,” he said. “If this standard were to apply, the director could challenge any or disqualify any potential reasons of personal dislike, or that the candidate may lose to their preferred candidate.”

Arguing for the Division of Elections, attorney Chris Murray said the division has the authority to review candidates and make sure the ballot is not presented in a way that would be confusing to voters.

In this case, he said the division director, Carol Beecher, reviewed complaints against the candidate filed by the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which works to elect Republicans, that say his name, party affiliation and campaign materials mimic the incumbent’s. Murray said Beecher found that Sullivan “accentuated the similarity” between himself and Senator Sullivan.

“She was stuck with the preponderance of the evidence pointing to this being a declaration of candidacy filed for the purpose of seeking office, but a declaration of candidacy filed for an ulterior purpose to cause voter confusion,” he said. “The director does not have the ability to permit that.”

Murray said in the Hafner case, there was no complaint filed prior to the primary on Hafner’s candidacy. He said the division has authority to review complaints and determine whether candidates made a “proper filing” before the primary, which they did for Sullivan.

“So where’s the line? The line is: the decision on qualification has to be made before somebody is placed onto the primary ballot, that is where Alaska law, that’s where the ‘properly filed’ comes in, that’s when there’s discretion in the Division of Elections — but that’s when the Division of Election decides who goes on the ballot, it’s before the primary election, that case was after the primary election,” he said.

Judge Thomas Matthews asked Murray how the division would handle the situation of three Dan Sullivans, in a hypothetical situation where a former Anchorage mayor, Dan A. Sullivan decided to enter the U.S. Senate race.

Murray said a “genuine candidate” would seek to distinguish himself from other candidates, and the division could use a middle initial or notation like “challenger” or “nonincumbent” on the ballot.

“I would say that if you were dealing with all of them, and all of them were trying to get on the ballot in order to win, I think they would all be cooperatively participating in a process where they could be effectively distinguished from each other, so as to avoid voter confusion. That’s not what we have here,” he said.

Judge Matthews asked if there was a way to effectively distinguish the two Dan Sullivans.

Murray said he did not believe that is the division’s responsibility if the candidate’s goal is to confuse voters. “Where the confusion is the goal, Your Honor, we don’t believe the division is under an obligation to try and mitigate it or accommodate it,” he said. “The court could order that the division implement some method to distinguish him, and I’ll say right now, we don’t think a middle initial is sufficient.”

Murray also argued the court ruling would be an important precedent for the division to administer elections.

“If this decision is not affirmed, and it turns out that the court holds that Alaska is just simply powerless, and the division is powerless to stop this sort of behavior, we’re going to be inviting more of this,” he said.

Judge Matthews said he will announce a ruling by Friday, and it could be after business hours.

Attorneys for Sullivan also filed a stay with the court to delay the division printing primary ballots until a final decision is ruled on by the courts. Matthews said he would consider the petition.

After the ruling, both parties are expected to appeal before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday.