Peltola Asks Judge to Toss DOJ Lawsuit Over Alaska Senate Certification

Mary Peltola, the Democratic candidate for United States Senate in Alaska, has asked a federal judge to dismiss the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to block the state from certifying election results if the Republican incumbent loses narrowly. In a court filing late on Sunday, October 25, 2026, lawyers for Peltola's campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee called the Justice Department's complaint "wholly baseless" and warned that it raised "profound constitutional concerns," according to Reuters.

The motion, reported by Reuters on Monday, October 26, is the latest escalation in a legal fight over one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country — a contest that could help determine which party controls the Senate after the November 3 midterm elections. It also marks a significant new chapter in a dispute that began when the Justice Department sued Alaska last week, alleging that voters could be confused because two Republicans on the ballot have almost identical names.

Peltola's campaign asked U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason to dismiss the case this week, before Election Day. It is not yet known when Gleason, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, may rule. Election law experts quoted by Reuters said the lawsuit has no merit and seeks relief that federal law does not allow.

The Lawsuit at the Center of the Fight

The Justice Department's lawsuit, filed in federal court in Alaska last week, centers on an unusual feature of the Alaska Senate ballot: two of the candidates share nearly the same name. The Republican incumbent is Senator Dan S. Sullivan. Another Republican contender on the ballot is Dan J. Sullivan Jr. The Justice Department alleged that the second Sullivan is trying to mislead supporters of the incumbent senator into voting for him instead.

Dan J. Sullivan Jr. has denied that his aim is to cause confusion. And in June, the Alaska Supreme Court permitted him to appear on the ballot, a ruling that settled, at least under state law, the question of whether his candidacy could proceed. The Justice Department's lawsuit nevertheless asks a federal court to intervene, seeking to block the state from certifying results if the incumbent loses narrowly — a remedy that, if granted, would effectively hold up the official outcome of a Senate election that could decide control of the chamber.

The lawsuit has drawn attention well beyond Alaska because of what it signals about the administration's willingness to contest midterm results. As Reuters noted, the suit "signals the willingness of President Donald Trump's administration to contest the results of the November 3 midterm elections," with Republicans battling to retain narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress. That framing is part of why Peltola's response has been so forceful: her campaign is not merely disputing a technical claim about ballot confusion, but challenging what it describes as a federal intrusion into a responsibility the Constitution assigns to the states.

"DOJ's complaint is wholly baseless. The fact that DOJ nonetheless chose to file it raises profound constitutional concerns," lawyers for Peltola's campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee wrote in the filing.

The Administration's Response

The administration has defended the lawsuit. Attorney General Todd Blanche, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" program on Sunday, said the lawsuit was filed to help officials determine whether any voter confusion violated the law.

"President Trump is not trying to take over a state election in any way, shape, or form," Blanche said.

Blanche's comments frame the lawsuit as a narrow legal inquiry rather than a broad intervention: a question about whether confusion on the ballot could constitute a legal violation, and a request for a court to sort it out. That framing is directly at odds with the Peltola campaign's characterization of the suit as an unlawful attempt by the federal government to intervene in election administration.

The gap between those two framings is, in many ways, the whole case. If the lawsuit is a routine effort to clarify whether voters were misled, it may be unremarkable. If it is, as Peltola's lawyers argue, a baseless complaint filed to create a pretext for blocking certification, it raises questions about the federal government's role in state elections that go far beyond Alaska.

Why Alaska Matters So Much

Alaska's Senate race is pivotal for a simple reason: control of the Senate may come down to a handful of seats, and Alaska is one of the closest. Peltola, who previously represented Alaska in the U.S. House of Representatives, is challenging incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan in what polling aggregators describe as a tight race. The Politix+ polling average as of October 26 put Peltola ahead by 1.8 points across 13 polls, a margin well within the range where a small shift in votes — or a dispute over certification — could matter enormously.

The broader Senate map underscores the stakes. Republicans hold narrow majorities in both chambers, and Democrats need only a net gain of a few seats to take control of the Senate. Prediction markets tracked on October 26 put Democrats' chances of winning the Senate at roughly 64 to 65 percent, with Alaska listed among the races leaning toward the Democrat. In a chamber where a single seat can decide the majority, a legal fight over whether Alaska's results can be certified on time is not a sideshow. It is potentially outcome-determinative.

Alaska's electoral system adds another layer of complexity. The state uses ranked-choice voting, and its results have historically taken time to finalize. A lawsuit seeking to block certification in the event of a narrow loss would land in that already slow process, potentially extending uncertainty well past Election Night. Peltola's campaign clearly wants the issue resolved before votes are counted, not after — hence the request for a dismissal ruling this week.

The Two Sullivans

The factual core of the dispute is straightforward, even if its legal implications are contested. Two candidates named Dan Sullivan are on the Alaska Senate ballot. One is the incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan, a Republican first elected to the Senate in 2014. The other is Dan J. Sullivan Jr., also a Republican, whose candidacy the Alaska Supreme Court allowed to proceed in June.

The Justice Department's theory is that voters intending to support the incumbent could mistakenly vote for the challenger with the similar name, and that this confusion could violate the law. Dan J. Sullivan Jr. has denied that his aim is to cause confusion, and the state supreme court's June decision to let him remain on the ballot suggests that, under Alaska law, his candidacy is legitimate.

Peltola's filing argues that none of this justifies federal intervention. Election administration is, as her lawyers noted, a responsibility the Constitution assigns to the states, and a federal lawsuit seeking to block certification would invert that arrangement. Election law experts cited by Reuters agreed, saying the lawsuit has no merit and seeks relief not permitted under federal law.

It is worth noting what the lawsuit does not allege. It does not claim that votes were miscounted, that ballots were fraudulent, or that any specific voter was prevented from voting. Its claim rests on the possibility of confusion created by similar names — a possibility that exists on its face but that, critics argue, is a matter for state election officials and state courts, not a federal lawsuit filed a week before an election.

The Broader Legal Landscape

The Alaska lawsuit is not the only election-related legal fight playing out in the final days before November 3. The 2026 cycle has already produced a series of courtroom battles over voting rules, certification, and election administration across the country, and the pattern helps explain why Peltola's filing drew national attention so quickly.

In California, the Justice Department has been pressing a case over alleged noncitizen ballots, with a federal appeals court holding a Sunday hearing at which judges appeared skeptical of the department's arguments, and a further hearing scheduled before a district judge. In Arizona, the state attorney general sued to restore the voting rights of citizens in Maricopa County. And the Justice Department has announced it is sending election monitors to Utah as part of a nationwide deployment of roughly 1,000 monitors.

Each of these cases involves a different legal theory and a different state, but they share a common feature: they are being litigated in the final weeks before an election in which control of Congress is at stake, and their outcomes could shape how votes are counted, certified, and challenged. Peltola's motion to dismiss fits squarely in that pattern — an effort to resolve a legal question before it can affect the counting of votes, rather than after.

For voters, the practical consequence of this legal activity is uncertainty. Lawsuits that remain pending on Election Day create the possibility of post-election litigation over results, and post-election litigation can delay certification and fuel disputes about legitimacy. Campaigns on both sides understand this, which is why they are fighting these battles now, in court, before a single ballot is counted on November 3.

What's Next

The immediate question is timing. Peltola's campaign has asked Judge Gleason to dismiss the case this week. If she does, the lawsuit will be removed as a cloud over Alaska's certification process before Election Day, and the state's results will proceed through the normal channels. If she declines to rule quickly, or declines to dismiss the case, the lawsuit will remain pending as votes are cast and counted, and its shadow will hang over the post-election period.

Either way, the filing guarantees that Alaska's Senate race will be watched not only for its result but for its legal aftermath. In a cycle already marked by lawsuits over voting rules, election monitors, and certification procedures in multiple states, Alaska has become the latest front in a broader fight over who controls the machinery of American elections.

For Peltola and Sullivan, the legal fight is also a campaign issue. Peltola's campaign can now argue that the administration tried to use the Justice Department to tilt the playing field in Alaska, while the administration and its allies can argue that they were merely protecting voters from confusion. How Alaska voters receive those competing arguments in the final eight days may matter as much as how Judge Gleason rules.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Mary Peltola ask the court to do?

Peltola's campaign, along with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, filed a motion late on Sunday, October 25, asking U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason to dismiss the Justice Department's lawsuit seeking to block Alaska from certifying Senate election results if the Republican incumbent loses narrowly. The campaign asked for a dismissal ruling this week.

What does the Justice Department's lawsuit claim?

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Alaska last week, alleges that voters could be confused because two Republicans on the ballot have almost identical names: incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan and challenger Dan J. Sullivan Jr. The Justice Department alleged that Dan J. Sullivan Jr. is trying to mislead supporters of the incumbent into voting for him.

What did Peltola's lawyers argue?

They argued that the complaint is "wholly baseless" and that filing it anyway "raises profound constitutional concerns." Their core argument is that the lawsuit represents an unlawful attempt by the federal government to intervene in election administration, a responsibility the Constitution assigns to the states.

How has the administration responded?

Attorney General Todd Blanche said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that the lawsuit was filed to help officials determine whether any voter confusion violated the law. "President Trump is not trying to take over a state election in any way, shape, or form," Blanche said.

Who is Judge Sharon Gleason?

Judge Gleason is a U.S. District Judge in Alaska and an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama. It is not yet known when she may rule on the dismissal request.

Why does the Alaska race matter nationally?

Alaska's Senate race could help determine which party controls the Senate after the November 3 midterms. Peltola, a former U.S. House member, is challenging incumbent Republican Dan S. Sullivan in a tight race, with polling averages showing Peltola ahead by less than two points.

Has Dan J. Sullivan Jr. responded to the confusion claims?

Yes. Dan J. Sullivan Jr. has denied that his aim is to cause confusion. The Alaska Supreme Court permitted him to appear on the ballot in June.

Sources: Reuters, October 26, 2026 (reporting by Luc Cohen); CNN "State of the Union," October 26, 2026; Politix+ polling averages, October 26, 2026.