What’s in a name? A confounding U.S. Senate race
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- In Alaska, in one of the country’s most competitive congressional contests, Dan Sullivan is facing Dan Sullivan.
- Is it a plot to boost the Democratic challenger, Mary Peltola, or merely coincidence? It sure smells fishy.
As the fight for control of the U.S. Senate grows increasingly competitive, eyes are turning north to Alaska and a contest pitting, among its contestants, Dan Sullivan vs. Dan Sullivan — and, no, it’s not about a candidate living a double life or wrestling demons within himself.
Confused?
That may be the point.
Daniel S. Sullivan is Alaska’s two-term Republican senator. He’s seeking reelection in November.
Daniel J. Sullivan is a retired school teacher and political novice. He calls himself an independent Republican cut from the same polar-fleece lining as the state’s maverick GOP senator, Lisa Murkowski.
Political handicappers give Daniel J. Sullivan little chance of winning the highly competitive race. So is there some other reason he’s running? Is his presence on the ballot intended to draw enough befuddled voters away from the incumbent to elect his Democratic challenger, former Rep. Mary Peltola?
That’s what Republicans think. And you don’t have to be standing on the banks of the Kenai River to smell something fishy.
Barabak: Gerrymanders, judges and an alley-oop: A look at the midterm fight for control of Congress
With the redistricting battle just about over, Republicans come out ahead but are still at serious risk of losing the House. Democrats face an uphill fight to win the Senate, but their odds have improved.
When Daniel J. Sullivan launched his campaign in May, he did so as plain old “Dan Sullivan,” with a website closely resembling that of the incumbent. The press release announcing his candidacy was written by one “Amber Lee.” There is an Alaska political strategist named Amber Lee who has supported Peltola in the past.
(For such a sparsely populated state, there sure are a lot of doppelgangers in this political saga.)
Election officials say Daniel J. Sullivan asked to appear on the ballot as a Republican, even though he hadn’t previously been affiliated with the party. In fact, over the years he’d contributed money to Democrats, including Peltola. He also asked to be identified on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan” before changing his mind, an attorney for the state told Alaska’s Supreme Court, which took up the matter late last month.
“That’s not an innocent mistake, or random mistake,” Chris Murray told the justices. “There’s a lot of other letters in the alphabet that could have been a typo.”
The political consultant Amber Lee declined to comment when reached by the Anchorage Daily News. She did not respond to an email from your friendly political columnist.
For his part, Daniel J. Sullivan denied any malice or mischievous intent.
“This is my choice,” he told the Associated Press. He said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign — “zero, none, zilch” — and denied anyone from the state Democratic Party or any national Democratic operatives had contacted him to run.
Peltola’s campaign has adamantly denied any involvement. So, too, have the Alaska Democratic Party and the Democrat’s national Senate campaign committee.
After an investigation, Daniel J. Sullivan was removed from the Aug. 18 primary ballot. Carol Beecher, head of Alaska’s Division of Elections, said his candidacy was intended to “confuse or mislead” voters.
But the state’s high court overturned that decision, instructing elections officials to figure out a way to keep Daniel J. Sullivan’s name on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”
It’s been nearly 20 years since the state sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate, but this election looks to offer the party its best shot in years, thanks to Peltola.
Jessica Taylor, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, called her “the ideal recruit,” given Peltola’s fundraising prowess and her ability to outperform other Democrats by avoiding the toxic taint of the national party. (Peltola’s slogan —”Fish, family and freedom” — is about as far removed from the Whole Foods-shopping, Prius-driving Democratic image as it gets.)
Democrats need to win four seats in November to take control of the Senate, from a menu that includes Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas while, at the same time, hanging on to contested Senate seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. The Cook Political Report rates Alaska as one of the few toss-up races in the bunch.
The state has a ranked-choice election system in which the top four vote-getters advance to November. Ivan Moore, who does nonpartisan polling in Alaska, said that system virtually ensures Sullivan and Sullivan will face off against each other in a runoff that includes Peltola. At that point, Moore suggested, the choice to most voters will be clear.
Under the solution devised by state election officials, the senator will be listed as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and as “(Registered Republican) Incumbent.” His challenger will be identified as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” with no party affiliation.
“I imagine there’s some people out there who don’t know what the word ‘incumbent’ means,” Moore said. “But I find it pretty hard to believe that people who are dead set on voting for Dan S. Sullivan, the senator, are going to go in the voting booth and vote for the wrong person when Dan S. has the word ‘incumbent’ next to his name and Dan J. doesn’t have any party affiliation.”
Platner had entered the race as an outsider and was seen as riding a progressive, anti-establishment wave of support.
Political hijinks are nothing new. But the level of partisan gamesmanship seems to be growing as the old saying about all being fair in love and war is increasingly applied to campaigns and elections.
It was something of a novelty in 2002 when Democrats meddled in the California Republican primary to promote their preferred candidate. Now it’s common practice.
Redistricting, or redrawing the nation’s congressional lines to reflect changes in population, used to occur once a decade following the national census. But spurred by President Trump, the last year has seen an arms race among states, including California, which gerrymandered their political maps to boost a preferred party and, essentially, decide House races before a single ballot is cast.
Politics, another old saying goes, ain’t beanbag.
But it doesn’t have to be this slanted and cynical. There’s no need for fishy-smelling candidates like Daniel J. Sullivan.
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The column portrays Daniel J. Sullivan’s entry into the race as a “fishy-smelling” gambit that weaponizes name confusion between two Dan Sullivans in a pivotal Senate contest, potentially siphoning votes from the incumbent and boosting Democrat Mary Peltola. It echoes Republican claims that the challenger is a sham candidate whose presence is designed to help Peltola in a race that could decide control of the Senate[2][4].
- The article emphasizes circumstantial evidence that heightens suspicion: Daniel J. Sullivan’s bid to file as a Republican despite no prior party registration, his history of contributing to Democrats including Peltola, his initial request to appear on the ballot with a nearly identical name to the incumbent, and a campaign launch that closely resembled the sitting senator’s branding, including a press release attributed to an Amber Lee with ties to Peltola in past Alaska races[2][4].
- The piece highlights that Alaska’s Division of Elections initially removed Daniel J. Sullivan from the primary ballot after concluding his candidacy was intended to “confuse or mislead” voters, and it casts the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate him as enabling partisan gamesmanship at the expense of electoral clarity and voter confidence[3][4][5].
- By situating the episode alongside examples of party meddling in opposing primaries and increasingly aggressive gerrymandering, the column argues that modern campaign tactics have grown more slanted and cynical, turning once-novel “political hijinks” into routine strategies that distort democratic competition before a single ballot is cast.
- The article notes that under Alaska’s top-four primary and ranked-choice general election system, both Sullivans and Peltola are likely to move on, but it stresses that the very deployment of a near-duplicate candidate shows a preference for manipulating voter confusion rather than presenting straightforward choices, even if ballot labels such as “incumbent” ultimately help many voters distinguish between the two[1][5][6][9].
- Ultimately, the column contends there is “no need” for tactics involving lookalike candidates, arguing that parties and strategists should refrain from such maneuvers and that competitive politics, while rough, does not have to rely on tricks that risk misleading voters about whom they are actually supporting.
Different views on the topic
- At the same time, Daniel J. Sullivan insists the campaign is a genuine effort born of dissatisfaction with the incumbent, arguing through public statements and his website that Alaska deserves a senator who “puts Alaska first every single day” and that voters should have the opportunity to elect “a Sullivan that actually stands up for Alaska”[1][2].
- The challenger repeatedly denies any coordination with Peltola or Democratic operatives, telling reporters and the Associated Press that there has been “zero, none, zilch” contact with Peltola’s campaign, the state Democratic Party, or national Democratic strategists, and rejecting accusations that the bid is a calculated attempt to confuse voters[2][3].
- Peltola’s campaign and Alaska Democratic officials likewise reject suggestions of an orchestrated plot, stating that the campaign has “no involvement with either Sullivan campaign” and emphasizing a focus on policy concerns such as lowering costs for Alaskans, a message framed as distinct from the controversy over names on the ballot[2][3].
- Legal rulings from an Alaska Superior Court and the state Supreme Court affirm Daniel J. Sullivan’s right to appear on the primary ballot, with judges concluding the Division of Elections acted improperly in striking him and directing officials to use ballot design — rather than exclusion — to address potential confusion, a stance some observers interpret as a defense of candidate rights and voter choice within existing law[1][4][7].
- Election administrators and analysts point out that Alaska’s all-party, top-four primary and ranked-choice general election are designed to advance multiple candidates and mitigate vote-splitting, noting that ballot labels such as “Registered Republican” and “incumbent” for the sitting senator, versus nonpartisan or unaffiliated tags for the challenger, should help many voters distinguish between the two Sullivans when casting ballots[1][5][6][9].
- Supporters of ranked-choice voting more broadly argue that allowing voters to rank candidates by preference reduces the impact of strategic candidacies and ensures that the eventual winner commands majority support, even in unusual races that feature candidates sharing the same name, and they highlight Alaska’s statewide use of ranked-choice voting in federal and statewide contests as an effort to strengthen representation[6][8][9].
- Coverage of the court fight notes that the judge rejected assertions the challenger was not acting in “good faith,” underscoring a view that simply sharing a name with an incumbent is not, on its own, grounds to bar a candidate and that questions about motives should be resolved by voters at the ballot box rather than by preemptive administrative remedies[5][7].