10
Loading video...
By Steve Mollman
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy has cast doubt about whether a Mary Peltola victory over Republican Senator Dan Sullivan would proceed normally to Washington, but an Alaska election-law expert said that the governor does not control the state's certification of election results.
University of Washington law professor Jeff Feldman told Newsweek that the director of Alaska's Division of Elections is responsible for certifying election results under state law.
"The Governor plays no role in the state certification process," Feldman said Friday.
Read More on Politics
The governor does, however, have a separate role under federal law in signing the certificate for a senator-elect, which Feldman described as typically "a ministerial act." He said he was unaware of an instance in which an Alaska governor declined to sign the certificate and honor the state's certified result.
...
The distinction has suddenly taken on national significance.
Dunleavy, a Republican, has declined to unequivocally say what Alaska would do if Peltola, a Democrat, wins while state and federal investigations into allegations surrounding another candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. remain active.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has gone further, suing Alaska in an effort to block certification of certain results if the incumbent Sullivan loses, arguing that voters could have been confused by the two similar names on the ballot. President Donald Trump has said he directed the department to bring the case.
The dispute could become particularly consequential because Alaska's Senate race is among those that could determine control of the upper chamber of Congress.
Related Story
Newsweek Webinar: How the Politics of AI Could Shape Midterms
Alaska is also expected to be among the last states to begin reporting results because of its time zone, while ranked-choice voting and the state's timetable for receiving absentee ballots mean a winner may not immediately be clear.
The state's election calendar targets November 18 for ranked-choice tabulation and November 25 for certification, more than three weeks after Election Day, November 3.
Newsweek has contacted Dunleavy's office, the Alaska Division of Elections, the Alaska Department of Law, and the Peltola and Sullivan campaigns for comment.
Dan Sullivan vs. Mary Peltola: What Latest Polls Say
The race between Peltola and Sullivan remains extremely close heading into Election Day.
A Data for Progress survey conducted October 8-16 found Peltola ahead of Sullivan by 3 points, while an InsiderAdvantage survey conducted October 9-10 had Peltola ahead by 2 points in a head-to-head matchup.
Alaska uses ranked-choice voting for federal general elections. If no candidate receives the required majority in the first round, the lowest-finishing candidate is eliminated, and ballots transfer according to voters' subsequent preferences. The process continues until a candidate surpasses the 50 percent threshold.
That system is particularly relevant to the controversy surrounding the two Sullivans.
FairVote, a nonprofit election-reform organization that advocates for ranked-choice voting, said the system can mitigate potential confusion between the two Sullivans because voters can rank both candidates. If one is eliminated, the ballot can transfer to the other if he is the voter's next available preference.
Ranked-choice voting also means the eventual winner may not be clear from the first-choice results.
Dan Sullivan Ballot Controversy Explained
The certification dispute centers on Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired teacher who shares a name with the incumbent senator.
Earlier this year, the Alaska Division of Elections concluded that Sullivan Jr. had filed his candidacy for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters. A Superior Court judge reversed the decision, finding that election officials lacked authority to impose the "good faith" candidacy requirement they had used. The Alaska Supreme Court subsequently allowed Sullivan Jr. to remain on the ballot.
The controversy escalated after The New York Times reported this week that operatives aligned with Peltola sought to recruit candidates into the race, including Sullivan Jr., as part of an effort to divide support for the incumbent.
Peltola has denied involvement in efforts to deceive voters. Her campaign previously told Newsweek: "The Alaskans for Mary campaign has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign."
The DOJ has since issued grand jury subpoenas seeking testimony or documents and records-preservation demands as part of a federal investigation into the circumstances surrounding Sullivan Jr.'s candidacy.
Dunleavy also ordered a state investigation. Alaska Department of Public Safety Deputy Commissioner Austin McDaniel told Newsweek that the Alaska Bureau of Investigation had begun investigating the alleged conduct.
Neither an investigation nor an allegation of campaign misconduct is itself a finding that the election returns are inaccurate. That distinction is central to the certification question.
What Donald Trump Has Said About Double Dan Sullivan Report
Trump has embraced the legal challenge surrounding the two-Sullivan controversy.
After DOJ filed its lawsuit seeking to prevent Alaska from certifying certain results if Sullivan loses, Trump said: "I'm the one that said 'do it.'"
Alaska election officials are fighting the federal government's effort. They have asked U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason to dismiss the DOJ's lawsuit, while Peltola's campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) have also moved for dismissal. Gleason fast-tracked consideration of the litigation ahead of Election Day.
How Have the Candidates Responded?
Peltola's campaign has characterized the certification challenge as an attempt to undermine a potential Democratic victory.
In a court filing Thursday, Peltola's campaign and the DSCC called the DOJ's accusation that they had misled the court "nonsense." The DOJ made the accusation after citing The New York Times reporting that Democratic operatives had been involved in recruiting Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and other candidates into the race.
Peltola's campaign and the DSCC argued that the Times allegations did not fix what they described as separate legal flaws in the DOJ's lawsuit seeking to block certification. They called the allegations "a distraction from DOJ's meritless claims" and said they provided "no basis for DOJ's demand that the Court enjoin certification."
Florida State University law professor Michael Morley told Newsweek earlier that the DOJ's original case was "completely meritless," arguing that the government had sued under the National Voter Registration Act without alleging that statute had been violated.
"The DOJ sued under the National Voter Registration Act but does not even allege that the statute has been violated here," Morley said. "Rather, the DOJ is claiming that allowing the election's results to be impacted by a sham candidacy would undermine the law's purpose. That's not a valid basis for suing."
Feldman similarly told Newsweek that the pending DOJ lawsuit does not alter his assessment of Alaska's certification duties.
"The likelihood that the Justice Department's lawsuit would result in a delay in certification of the election is low," he said. "Even the State of Alaska does not believe there is a legal basis for that to occur."
Sullivan's campaign, meanwhile, has accused Peltola's operation of misleading Alaskans.
"Mary Peltola and her campaign have spent months gaslighting Alaskans, denying a scheme they were running all along," campaign spokesperson Nate Adams previously told Newsweek.
Sullivan Jr. has maintained that he entered independently because of dissatisfaction with the incumbent.
"It's a free country," he said after Alaska courts restored him to the ballot earlier this year, according to Courthouse News Service. He added that he hoped people knew "who and what they are voting for" but that "choice is good."
Alaska Election Certification Process Explained
State certification and the credentials ultimately sent to the Senate are separate steps.
Feldman said that Alaska Statute 15.15.450 makes the director of the Division of Elections responsible for certifying election results.
"The Governor plays no role in the state certification process," Feldman said.
The Division of Elections operates under the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, and its director is appointed.
Once the election has been reviewed, Alaska law says that the director "shall certify" the person receiving the largest number of votes and issue a certificate of election.
The governor has a separate role after that process. Feldman said federal law requires the governor to sign the certificate for a senator-elect. He described providing that signature as typically "a ministerial act."
"I am unaware of an instance in which an Alaska governor declined to sign the certificate and honor the results of the state certification process conducted by the Division of Elections," he said.
That distinction puts Dunleavy's recent remarks into sharper focus.
Asked by NewsNation whether Alaska would certify a Peltola victory while the matter remained under investigation, Dunleavy said officials would "follow the law" and that findings of illegal conduct "may in fact impact whether somebody is seated in the U.S. Senate."
Dunleavy said officials would need more information before determining "whether we send something down or not." Pressed by NewsNation on why he would not unequivocally commit to certification, he said: "We're going to ensure that we aren't going to send a scam to Washington."
Does an Election Challenge Automatically Stop Certification?
No automatic delay follows simply from the existence of an investigation, according to Feldman's reading of Alaska law.
"There is no provision of Alaska law that I am aware of that would permit state officials to delay or withhold certification of the election results based on the existence of an investigation," Feldman said.
Alaska also has specific statutory mechanisms for challenging or revisiting election results.
A defeated candidate or 10 qualified voters can request a recount, and for offices other than governor and lieutenant governor, the application deadline is within five days after completion of the state ballot-counting review. A recount must be completed within 10 days.
Following a recount, Alaska law says that if a candidate is determined to have won, the director "shall issue a certificate of election" to that candidate.
So merely challenging an election is different from obtaining a court order preventing its certification.
An investigation or challenge, therefore, does not itself halt certification. The DOJ is separately asking a federal court for an order that would stop certification under the circumstances alleged in its lawsuit.
What Legal Standard Would Stop Alaska From Certifying?
If state officials refused to certify after the statutory requirements had been satisfied, Feldman said litigation would be the likely next step.
"It is all but certain that a lawsuit would be brought to compel Alaska officials to perform their legal duty to certify the election," he said.
Feldman said a court would have the authority and duty to interpret and apply the law and compel certification if its statutory requirements had been met.
Such litigation potentially could be filed in state or federal court because both state and federal law could be implicated, he said. Historically, however, Alaska election challenges generally have been dealt with by state courts under state law.
That means refusing to certify would not necessarily end the process. It could instead move the dispute rapidly into court.
Has an Election Ever Not Been Certified?
Election officials elsewhere have refused or threatened to certify results before, although recent attempts generally have not prevented election results from ultimately becoming certified.
The Brennan Center for Justice and other election organizations have documented local certification refusals or threatened refusals in elections since 2020, with state officials and courts intervening in such disputes.
Protect Democracy has said that every election result ultimately was certified in 2020 and 2024 despite attempts to disrupt certification.
But those examples are not identical to what is being contemplated in Alaska.
This situation is different: it involves a statewide U.S. Senate election and a federal lawsuit filed before Election Day seeking to stop certification under specified circumstances.
Who Ultimately Decides a Disputed U.S. Senate Election?
The answer could ultimately involve the courts and the U.S. Senate.
Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution makes each chamber the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its members.
Senate procedure provides for senators-elect to present credentials, while the Secretary of the Senate records certificates of election. Senate rules include a recommended certificate signed by the appropriate state officials.
The Senate has developed precedents for contested elections.
According to the Senate Historical Office, a senator-elect arriving with credentials that appear valid and are signed by the proper state authorities typically has been allowed to take the seat even while a challenge remains pending. In some cases, that has been done "without prejudice," allowing the Senate to continue investigating the election afterward.
The harder problem would arise if Alaska didn't provide the customary credentials.
Feldman said it is conceivable the Senate could determine who had been elected and seat that candidate, but withholding the ordinary certification would trigger additional legal questions.
If the governor declined to sign the certificate, Feldman said, "the Senate could decline to seat the senator-elect."
If the Senate instead decided to seat the winner without the governor's signature, he said, that decision also could generate litigation.
Feldman said the dispute could ultimately land before a federal district court in Washington, D.C.
Could Alaska's Senate Seat Be Vacant?
Yes, at least temporarily, according to Feldman.
He said it was possible that Alaska's Senate seat could remain vacant when the new Congress begins if a dispute over certification or credentials had not been resolved.
"It's possible that could occur," Feldman said.
Temporary vacancies in Congress are not particularly unusual, he noted, although they generally result from circumstances such as death, incapacity or retirement rather than an election-certification dispute of the kind now being contemplated.
A temporary vacancy could become particularly important if the Alaska seat determines which party controls the Senate.
How Alaska Could Determine Control of the Senate
Republicans hold a 53-47 Senate majority, so Democrats need a net gain of four seats to take control.
The Alaska race is among the contests that could determine the majority, meaning the state's result could become decisive if the other Senate races leave control of the chamber dependent on Alaska.
The state's election calendar adds another complication.
Election Day is November 3, but Alaska targets November 18 for its ranked-choice tabulation and November 25 for certification.
If neither Peltola nor Sullivan secures the required majority of first-choice votes, lower-finishing candidates will be eliminated and their ballots redistributed according to subsequent rankings. That means the national Senate picture could become substantially clearer before Alaska completes its process.
If Senate control comes down to Alaska, the state's later ranked-choice tabulation and certification would carry consequences far beyond its borders.
And if a Peltola victory were followed by a refusal to issue the necessary certification or credentials, the dispute could become not merely a fight over who won Alaska but over whether a potentially decisive Senate seat can be filled when the new Congress convenes in January.
Representative Grace Meng of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Justice Department funding, has accused the administration of laying the groundwork for such a dispute.
"Alaskans haven't finished voting, and DOJ is already issuing grand jury subpoenas while Governor Dunleavy refuses to say he'll certify the winner," Meng said Friday in a statement shared with Newsweek.
Mary Peltola Holds Anchorage Rally Before Election Day
Peltola is scheduled to hold a campaign rally in Anchorage on Friday night, with C-SPAN listing coverage at 9 p.m. ET.
The event comes as the certification dispute, the Justice Department lawsuit and state and federal investigations increasingly dominate the closing days of the campaign.
The rally provides Peltola another opportunity to address Dunleavy's comments and the Trump administration's legal challenge before Election Day.
Newsweek reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Samantha Beech and Dave Siminoff.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines