The Justice Department’s recent legal challenge seeking to block Alaska’s Senate election results if Republican incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan loses is drawing sharp criticism from legal scholars who view the action as a weak and abusive legal maneuver. President Donald Trump acknowledged on Friday that he personally ordered the department to bring the lawsuit, which targets the state’s handling of an election featuring another candidate with the exact same name.
Walter Olson of the CATO Institute described the filing as abusive in intent and nearly frivolous in argument. Other legal authorities echoed that assessment, with University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller calling it one of the worst legal arguments he has ever encountered. Stan Brand, a veteran attorney who previously served as top counsel for the House and represented Trump allies, labeled the filing a political document designed to distort the process and intrude upon an area reserved exclusively for the states.
Filed Thursday by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, the third-ranking official at the department, the lawsuit demands that Alaska officials postpone certifying election results if the incumbent senator is defeated. The DOJ argues an investigation is necessary regarding potential voter confusion stemming from the presence of another man named Dan Sullivan on the ballot. However, the Alaska Supreme Court previously rejected an identical challenge in June, a ruling that would typically conclude challenges regarding state-level election administration.
Legal experts point out that the department’s manual explicitly outlines a narrow role in election matters, limiting federal involvement to investigating and prosecuting violations of federal election laws while recognizing that states bear the ultimate responsibility for administering elections and tabulating results. A Justice Department spokesperson defended the action on Friday, stating it is rooted in enforcing the National Voter Registration Act’s requirement to protect electoral integrity, noting that Alaska’s Division of Elections initially rejected the rival candidate’s bid over voter confusion concerns.
The Alaska challenge sits before U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason, an appointee of President Barack Obama, who had not responded to the filing by Friday afternoon. The move aligns with a broader pattern of intervention by the administration in state election procedures during the final weeks of the midterm cycle. Previous efforts have included lawsuits against California over mail-in ballots from registered voters asserted to be noncitizens, unsuccessful attempts to restrict late-arriving mail ballots, and numerous failed efforts by the Civil Rights Division to obtain state voter rolls.
The late-campaign legal activities have generated widespread concern among national Democrats, prompting urgent counteractions. On Friday, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, and national party campaign organizations petitioned U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to compel the administration to disclose any demands made to state and local election officials regarding ballot counting or voter roll purges. The request also seeks communications involving potential criminal investigations or legal threats directed at election workers performing their public duties. Judge Boasberg had not yet ruled on the request by early Friday afternoon.
