The White House pulled the emergency brake on the Alaska Senate race. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s team has launched a criminal investigation into the candidacy of a retired schoolteacher named Daniel Sullivan, who is running against the incumbent, also named Daniel Sullivan, in the state’s crucial November 3 election. Trump took to Truth Social on Wednesday, calling the situation "Voter Fraud at the Highest Level" and demanding that Democrat opponent Mary Peltola be "removed from the ballot and prosecuted."
The trigger? A report from the New York Times. The paper claimed that Peltola’s campaign team coordinated the entry of the teacher Sullivan on the ballot. The goal, they allegedly planned, was to confuse voters and siphon votes from the Republican incumbent. CNN reported on Thursday that the Justice Department is "dramatically accelerating" this probe, issuing dozens of grand jury subpoenas. It is a hard charge to substantiate, especially since the ballot paper itself clearly distinguishes the two Sullivans—one is the incumbent, the other has no party affiliation.
And the legal footing is shaky. In the US, elections are a state matter. The federal government has no say in who makes it onto the ballot. Stephen Collinson, a political analyst at CNN, pointed out that while Trump might build a narrative out of this, the law is on the side of the teacher. "But in politics, as opposed to the law, perception has long been as important as reality," Collinson wrote. He noted that whether the incumbent Sullivan wins or loses, Trump will likely highlight the "shenanigans" in Alaska to claim Democrats are corrupt everywhere, especially if the GOP bombs on Tuesday.
Why the desperation? The midterms are shaping up to be a referendum on the President. Almost all opinion polls show the Republican Party trailing nationwide in the House of Representatives and the Senate. In Alaska, a New York Times/Siena College poll gave the Democrats a 51 to 45 per cent lead over the Republican candidate. If Alaska ends up deciding which party controls the 100-member Senate, expect major chaos as Trump will not give up without a massive fight.
This isn’t the first time the US has seen name confusion on ballots, and it’s not a new trick in India either. In 2014, Hema Malini contested against Hema Malini in Mathura. And in 2019, Rahul Gandhi faced off against another Rahul Gandhi—and even a Raghul Gandhi—in Wayanad. The Indian Supreme Court has already ruled that a person’s name cannot be used to restrict another’s right to contest an election. The US legal system is likely to follow a similar logic, making Trump’s legal offensive a political stunt rather than a viable strategy.