Two Dans, One Ballot, and a Case for Sunlight

Anyone who has coached youth sports knows the roster problem. Two boys named Jake sign up in September, and by the second practice you're hollering "Jake S." and "Jake M." across the field. Alaska voters face the adult version on November 3 with one twist. The second Dan Sullivan on their Senate ballot may have been recruited to be there, and the evidence is pointing in that direction. My view is simple: The allegations are serious and well sourced, but the remedy belongs to state election officials, investigators and voters, and a federal lawsuit filed before there is a result is the wrong tool.

Start with what is reported. On October 28, the New York Times reported that Peltola campaign aides, campaign lawyers and senior Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff took part in a secret effort to recruit spoiler candidates, including Dan J. Sullivan of Petersburg. The paper relied on interviews, text messages and documents. The Peltola campaign and the DSCC deny involvement, and Peltola called the story a distraction.

Two cautions first. The Times did not establish that Peltola personally directed anything, and her former campaign manager, Elisa Rios, later retracted her statements. Nobody has been charged yet. As a designated expert witness in fiduciary disputes, I've watched allegations harden into headlines long before they harden into evidence.

Still, nobody should wave this off as partisan noise. The Times is hardly a Republican cheerleader and the suspicion predates its reporting. Alaska opened its own investigation in June, though the Alaska Supreme Court later put him back on the ballot. By his own account, Dan J. Sullivan voted for the Democrat nominee in the last three presidential elections, skipped Sen. Sullivan in two Senate races and supported Peltola's House bids in 2022 and 2024. He denies any scheme. A Republican with that voting record is the political equivalent of a Patriots fan in a Jets jersey.

Then follow the money, which tells a modest story. FEC filings show his committee raised just $30,555.62 and spent $28,654.11 between May 29 and October 14, leaving $1,901.51 in the bank. Those numbers describe a funded campaign so anyone claiming he spent nothing is wrong. They also fall far short of a conventional statewide Senate race, and they don't tell us who, if anyone, helped him qualify. Recruitment and financing are separate questions, and only the second one leaves a public paper trail.

The ballot itself invites trouble. Sen. Sullivan's entry reads "registered Republican" and "incumbent," while Daniel J. Sullivan's carries no modifiers. In August, Peltola took 49.5 percent of the primary vote, the incumbent 41.4 percent and the namesake 2.5 percent. That share is small, and preliminary analysis found little confusion, with most of his votes coming from Democratic-leaning districts. A poll released the day before the primary showed Peltola and Sullivan tied at 44 percent, with the namesake near five percent, while a later Times/Siena survey put Peltola ahead by seven points. Neither number makes a decoy decisive. A tactic can be tawdry without changing the outcome.

Alaska's ranked-choice system adds a wrinkle. The Justice Department alleges that some voters meaning to back the incumbent may rank the other Dan first, which changes how votes move in later rounds. Voters can also rank both men, so a mistaken first choice need not erase a vote. That weakens the claim of harm and leaves the question of intent standing. Intent is what investigators exist to test.

The federal response is where my conservative instincts rebel. On October 23, the Justice Department sued to block certification if Sen. Sullivan loses and votes cast for his namesake could have changed the result. The Elections Clause gives the states the power to set the manner of holding elections, and gives Congress, not the executive branch, the power to alter those rules. Conservatives have long argued that states run elections. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who endorsed Sullivan, said the department should never have filed, and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) objected to suing before the facts exist. A principle that bends for one Senate seat has a short shelf life.

Louis Brandeis wrote that sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. In fiduciary work, the undisclosed conflict does the damage, and the same logic applies to a campaign that hides who recruited its candidates. Federal investigators have been at work since grand jury subpoenas were reported in August, citing a law enforcement source. Let that process run and let the evidence reach the public through courts and filings. Recruiting a namesake may be sleazy without being criminal, and prosecutors must name a statute they can prove.

Alaska could close this loophole without Washington's help. A candidate should hold a party registration for a set period, say 12 months, before using that label, because Newsweek reports Dan J. Sullivan belonged to the Alaska Independence Party until it dissolved and first registered as a Republican when he filed. Ballots should print full legal name, hometown, and occupation beside every candidate. Coaches use last initials for a reason. Campaigns and committees should disclose anyone paid to help a candidate qualify. A complaint to the FEC alleges coordination with an outside group, which denies wrongdoing, and in September the agency had only two commissioners when it needs four to act. Voters can't wait for that.

Alaskans deserve to know whether a decoy was planted, and the answer should arrive through evidence, not an eleventh-hour injunction. If the reporting holds, the architects of what the Times says was internally dubbed the "ballot composition project" owe voters and investigators an explanation. Election night will supply the margin and investigators will supply the rest. Highlander promised there can be only one. Alaska got two and the decent response is a better ballot and an honest count. As a father of three and a longtime coach, I tell my players the same thing every season: win by outplaying the other team and leave the roster alone.

Jay Rogers is a financial professional with more than 30 years of experience in private equity, private credit, hedge funds, and wealth management. He writes about issues in finance, constitutional law, national security, human nature, and public policy.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.