Dem Candidate Goes Missing Days Before Voting Begins

Hand placing a ballot into a wooden voting box — Photo: Christian Schwier / Shutterstock

Alaska voters found two men named Dan Sullivan on the same Senate ballot, and now federal investigators want to know if that was an accident.

Quick Take

The New York Times reported that aides to Mary Peltola, campaign lawyers, and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff helped recruit a second Dan Sullivan to run against the Republican incumbent.
The Justice Department sued to block certification of the race if Senator Dan Sullivan lost and the loss was tied to voter confusion.
Mary Peltola and the second candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan, both deny any coordination or intent to trick voters.
Alaska’s governor opened his own investigation, and similar name-confusion tricks have popped up in other states before.

Two Men, One Name, One Ballot

Four names appeared on Alaska’s Senate ballot this fall: Mary Peltola, incumbent Republican Dan S. Sullivan, Gerald Heikes, and a retired teacher named Daniel J. Sullivan. The ballot labeled the incumbent as “Registered Republican, Incumbent,” but critics say that wasn’t enough to stop confused voters from picking the wrong name in a ranked-choice system already known for tripping people up.

Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, where voters rank candidates instead of picking just one. Past data from similar races shows a chunk of ballots get “exhausted,” meaning they stop counting before a winner is picked, often because voters didn’t rank every name or misunderstood the system. Add a near-identical name to that mix, and the odds of an honest mistake climb fast.

What The New York Times Found

A New York Times investigation published October 28, 2026, said it relied on interviews with twelve sources, along with text messages and documents. The paper reported that Peltola campaign aides, campaign lawyers, and staff from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee took part in efforts to recruit Daniel J. Sullivan and other candidates who shared or resembled the senator’s name.

That reporting became the spark for everything that followed. Fox News hosts and conservative commentators quickly branded the retired teacher “Decoy Dan,” arguing the goal was obvious: split off enough confused Republican-leaning votes to help Peltola win. The alleged texts and documents haven’t been made public in full, so the specifics of who approved what remain known only through the Times’ sourcing.

Peltola and the Second Sullivan Push Back Hard

Peltola has repeatedly denied any involvement. “I knew nothing about any other candidate on the ballot except for me and the incumbent,” she said, adding, “I am not interested in tricking voters”. She also called the whole episode out of step with how Alaskans operate, saying she believed she could win the race honestly.

Daniel J. Sullivan, the candidate accused of being the decoy, denied any contact with Peltola’s campaign just as firmly, telling reporters his connection to Democrats was “zero, none, zilch”. Peltola’s team echoed that distance, saying flatly that “the Alaskans for Mary campaign has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign.”

Federal Lawsuit and a State Investigation Collide

The Trump administration’s Justice Department filed suit seeking to block certification of the race if Senator Sullivan lost and voter confusion played a role, alleging Daniel J. Sullivan tried to “dupe Alaska’s voters into believing that he is” the sitting senator. Alaska’s governor, Mike Dunleavy, ordered his own investigation into how two candidates with the same name wound up on one ballot.

The Peltola campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee later told the court they lacked enough information to confirm or deny what Daniel J. Sullivan’s true motives were, calling the government’s broader accusations “nonsense” meant to distract from weaknesses in its own case. That response hasn’t satisfied Republicans, who point out that a pre-certification lawsuit this unusual doesn’t get filed over nothing.

This Isn’t the First Namesake Trick in American Politics

Alaska isn’t the first state to see this play. In Washington’s 2024 attorney general race, a Republican activist reportedly paid two other men named Bob Ferguson to run against the Democratic incumbent, hoping confused voters would split their votes. Washington’s law specifically bans candidacies meant to “confuse and mislead” voters, and those decoy candidates eventually withdrew.

Is this true Grok?

Grok: Yes, the core claims in that post are supported by multiple contemporaneous reports and public records.https://t.co/LSqF4wtWic

Public filings and reporting establish that Alan Harris delivered Daniel J. (“Decoy Dan”) Sullivan’s declaration of…

— California Kid (@BrianRo88242805) November 1, 2026

That history matters here. It shows name-confusion schemes are a real, documented tactic in American elections, not some far-fetched conspiracy theory. Whether Alaska’s version crosses the same legal line as Washington’s case depends on evidence that hasn’t yet been made public. Conservatives watching this case argue the pattern alone is reason enough for aggressive federal scrutiny, especially with control of the Senate potentially on the line.

What Happens From Here

Subpoenas have gone out, Alaska’s own investigators are digging, and the federal lawsuit is moving through court while ballots are already counted. Whether anyone broke the law, or simply ran a hardball campaign trick, won’t be settled by press conferences or cable news debate. It will come down to the actual texts, documents, and sworn testimony investigators manage to pull out of a campaign that insists it has nothing to hide.