Feds Try to Freeze an Election Before Votes Are Counted

The U.S. Department of Justice, acting at President Donald Trump's direction, has asked a federal judge to stop Alaska from certifying a Senate race, but only if the wrong candidate wins. That's the heart of the complaint filed Oct. 22. It demands that Judge Sharon L. Gleason halt certification solely in the event of a victory by Democrat Mary Peltola, and only until it can be determined whether voters were confused by a second candidate sharing the name of her Republican rival, Sen. Dan Sullivan. The condition is the tell. Block certification if Sullivan loses by fewer votes than those cast for Daniel J. Sullivan. No other outcome triggers the emergency.

Two days before the Tuesday, Nov. 3 midterm election, the apparatus keeps escalating. On Friday, the DOJ amended its suit to ask the judge to separate every ballot showing a vote for the second Sullivan. Alaska's attorney general's office, headed by Republican acting Atty. Gen. Cori Mills, called the request "both disturbing and impossible," noting there would be no way to do it without violating voter privacy. Even the Republican-run state government wants this federal intrusion gone. In a Saturday filing, it wrote there is "no reason for this Court to entertain this meritless lawsuit any longer."

Who Has the Power

The Trump administration argues that a preamble to a 1990s voter registration law makes it responsible for ensuring states maintain the "integrity" of federal elections. The ACLU, in a filing, put the stakes plainly: "Imagine if the federal executive could pluck a few words like 'election integrity' from some statutory preamble and, on that basis alone, bend the machinery of state elections to his will, preemptively blocking certification of a U.S. Senate election to protect his preferred candidate from defeat and then subjecting voters to a law-enforcement-led inquest about who they 'really' supported."

Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, was blunter. "DOJ's theory: two candidates named Sullivan might confuse voters. The Alaska Supreme Court settled that in June and the ballot labels the incumbent. DOJ has no role in state election law." The state itself notes that the senator is listed as a Republican and the incumbent, while the other is "Daniel J. Sullivan Jr." with no party affiliation. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled this summer that the second candidate met every legal requirement to stay on the ballot.

Who Gets Crushed

The voters, in the end, are the ones being put under the microscope. The DOJ issued more than 30 subpoenas in 24 hours, according to sources who spoke to Fox News, and announced a criminal investigation. Alaska U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman, flanked by FBI officials and Alaska State Troopers at a Friday press conference, said of the New York Times reporting: "We are taking that extremely seriously." He also said: "I'm not making any assumptions on whether a crime has been committed or not."

That's a lot of badges and subpoenas for a retired school teacher from the fishing village of Petersburg, who sits at the center of it all. Trump demanded that Peltola be prosecuted. Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy announced a state investigation and has condemned the second Sullivan's placement on the ballot.

The Dirty Tricks Are Bipartisan

None of this makes the party operatives innocent. The Times reported that internal texts and posts appeared to show Peltola's campaign was involved in recruiting the second Sullivan. The report drew on interviews with her former campaign manager, texts, and contributions from a political group backing Peltola to an out-of-state Democratic consultant who recruited the second Sullivan. The DOJ's amended suit also cites reporting that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and senior Peltola aides allegedly worked to recruit candidates who could pull votes from Sullivan. Peltola has denied involvement.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member, called recruiting a same-name candidate a "dirty trick" but said it is not necessarily a criminal violation. Aubrey Wieber of the progressive 907 Initiative said of the federal move: "One could say it appears that they are trying to interfere in an election and put their thumb on the scale."

Here's the picture. One party's operatives game the ballot. The other party's president reaches for the Justice Department to game the count. Both treat the vote as a prize to be engineered, and the people who cast it as raw material. The state's own lawyers put it best, almost by accident: "Not every wrong can be righted in federal court."