Justice Department's Ballot Push Hits Court Wall

A federal judge rejected the Trump administration’s bid to make Alaska set aside ballots in its Senate race, ruling that the Justice Department offered no workable way to investigate alleged voter confusion while preserving ballot secrecy. The people casting ballots would have borne the cost of a federal demand to separate them for a law-enforcement inquiry that had no specified method.

Ballots Under Federal Pressure

U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason threw out the lawsuit on Sunday. The administration argued voters might confuse incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan with a lesser-known candidate of the same name. Its requested remedy was to order Alaska to set aside ballots for an investigation.

Gleason said the government had not explained how that could address its claimed injury without compromising the secret ballot. “The absence of any explanation from the United States as to how its requested relief could redress its alleged injury while simultaneously maintaining the secrecy of the ballot is telling,” she wrote. “Simply, the Court cannot grant the United States the relief it seeks.”

The proposal could also have made voting less predictable for the people whose ballots the government wanted to isolate. Gleason wrote that segregating ballots for a future, unspecified investigation “would likely result in voter 'confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.'” She said longstanding Supreme Court precedent strongly disfavors last-minute intervention by federal judges.

The ballot lists the senator as Dan S. Sullivan, a registered Republican and the incumbent. The newcomer appears as Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr. Those details sit at the center of a federal effort to intervene in how Alaska’s election is administered.

A Court Loss, an Investigation Still Running

The ruling blocks this civil lawsuit, not every federal effort involving the race. The Justice Department may appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the article says the lawsuit’s defeat may not end the administration’s efforts.

After The New York Times reported that Democratic candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee were involved in recruiting the lesser-known Sullivan to enter the race, U.S. Attorney for Alaska Michael Heyman announced last week that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation into how the candidacy arose. Donors to the lesser-known candidate, a retired teacher, said the FBI had visited them in recent days. Records obtained by POLITICO from the Alaska Supreme Court show that an FBI agent requested the court file from earlier civil litigation.

That litigation produced orders requiring the lesser-known Sullivan to appear on the ballot and requiring the incumbent to be clearly identified as such. Alaska’s highest court upheld those orders. The report describes no grassroots or mutual-aid response; it describes donors contacted by the FBI and a federal agent seeking court records.

Federal courts had also blocked the administration from forcing California to set aside up to 20,000 ballots cast by registered voters whom it claims are noncitizens. On Friday, a judge ordered the administration not to demand that states segregate ballots or threaten criminal prosecution of election workers who did not comply with its directives. The court rulings mark limits on federal demands, not a transfer of election power to voters themselves.

The Limits of the Legal Fix

Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy said he intended to investigate the matter. Under Alaska’s political calendar, his successor is scheduled to be sworn in on Dec. 7, during any post-election challenges to the results.

Spokespeople for Peltola and the DSCC had not responded to requests for comment in recent days, though they denied the allegations earlier this year. Legal experts said it was not clear whether an effort to deploy a spoiler candidate would violate state or federal law. Political operatives have a long history of similar gamesmanship.

The immediate contest is over what authorities may do to ballots, election workers, and voters in the name of an investigation. Gleason rejected the administration’s proposed intervention because it could not explain how to pursue that investigation while keeping ballots secret. The FBI inquiry continues, and the Justice Department may appeal. The ballots remain the point where institutional power meets the people asked to cast them.