Alaska’s Senate race has taken a strange turn, with voters expected to see two Republican candidates named Dan Sullivan on the November ballot. According to a New York Times report, the duplicate name may not be a coincidence. The report alleges that Democrat operatives searched for another Dan Sullivan who would run against incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan and potentially confuse Republican voters.
The candidate they eventually found was Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from a small Alaska fishing village reachable only by air or sea. He has reportedly held no campaign events, given very few interviews, and voted for Democrats in the past. That is an unusual profile for a Senate candidate, unless the real campaign objective is simply getting a familiar name printed in the right place.
The ballot also includes Republican Gerald Heikes and Democrat Mary Peltola, who is the only Democrat in the race. Alaska’s contest is expected to be among the closest elections this cycle, making even a small amount of voter confusion potentially significant. Why run a traditional campaign when a nearly identical name might create a ballot ambush without the bother of persuading anyone?
The report says a staffer was instructed to search voter records for people named Dan Sullivan and contact them about running for Senate. The alleged project was described as an effort to affect the state’s unusual four-person ballot and take votes from the incumbent Republican senator.
The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied involvement in recruiting Dan J. Sullivan. However, The Times says interviews, text messages, and documents prepared for a potential lawsuit indicate that the campaign worked with people involved in the recruitment effort and that the operation was broader than one candidate.
The Times described the alleged effort this way: “The endeavor, which was internally called the ballot composition project, involved secret trips to far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs,”
Former Peltola campaign manager Elisa Rios reportedly said Peltola was “definitely aware” of what was happening. The New York Times also reported that it had evidence from 12 people who participated in the alleged plot. Those claims directly conflict with the campaign’s public denials, leaving voters to sort through a dispute that should never have been this complicated in the first place.
JUST IN: Democrat operatives spent months finding Alaskans with the same name as Republican Dan Sullivan so they could confuse voters and help Mary Peltola (D), according to The New York Times.
A staffer was tasked with finding every voter named "Dan Sullivan" in the state and… pic.twitter.com/7WTrm2n10T
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 28, 2026
🚨 JUST IN: AG Blanche says Democrats are FLAT OUT CHEATING in Alaska by fielding a candidate with the SAME NAME as the incumbent Dan Sullivan to CONFUSE voters
"They are CHEATING. Right? Let's call it what it is: they are CHEATING."
"They are trying to TAKE VOTES away from the… pic.twitter.com/YFdoIWVXuA
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) October 28, 2026
The irony is hard to miss. A political operation allegedly designed to muddy the ballot can still be presented as a defense of democracy, as if voters enjoy solving campaign-generated name puzzles before casting a vote. Alaskans will decide the race, but the allegations raise serious questions about whether campaigns should win support by making their case or by manufacturing confusion around an opponent’s name.
Leave a Comment