Alaska Democrats played into Trump’s hands with Dan Sullivan ballot-stacking effort

Kerry Tasker/Reuters

Alaska Democrats gave Donald Trump exactly what he wanted.

The president seized on a storm unleashed by a report that Democrats aligned with Senate candidate Mary Peltola tried to confuse voters in her fight against incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan by recruiting a second candidate with the same name.

In a grim election season for Republicans, the New York Times bombshell created a rare chance Wednesday to turn the midterm election narrative away from Trump’s woeful approval ratings , high gasoline prices and the unpopular Iran war .

The alleged electoral gamesmanship, while shabby and disrespectful to voters, doesn’t seem to be illegal based on current available evidence. And Alaskans, who once voted to reelect Sen. Lisa Murkowski by writing in her name after she lost a primary, are a savvy bunch not likely to be confused by an unusual voting system that allows multi-way general election contests.

But Trump has spent years spinning false conspiracies about Democratic cheating and nonexistent electoral fraud. Now, at last he has a data point to sculpt into a suggestive narrative. And whether the OG Dan Sullivan wins or loses, the president will be sure to highlight shenanigans in Alaska to claim Democrats everywhere are corrupt — especially if the GOP bombs on Tuesday.

“This is Voter Fraud at the Highest Level … this behavior in our Elections cannot be allowed to continue,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, warming up for Election Day, while calling for Peltola to be “removed from the ballot and prosecuted.”

Alaska election officials told CNN Wednesday that there’s no role for the Trump administration in deciding who gets to run in the state’s election. “Placing candidates on the ballot is a matter of state law, not federal law,” said spokesperson Sam Curtis.

But in politics, as opposed to the law, perception has long been as important as reality. Trump understands this more instinctively than any modern president.

Peltola’s campaign has denied any wrongdoing in the recruiting of the second Dan Sullivan. And many Democrats are likely to see the antics in Alaska as fair game — and perhaps even as evidence that their party’s intestinal fortitude, in hibernation for years, has broken through the frozen tundra.

Mark Schiefelbein/AP

And, of course, Trump’s outrage is rather rich. After all, he tried to junk an entire presidential election in 2020, including with his request that Georgia election officials “find” sufficient votes to hand him the swing state.

Republicans, however, will argue that Democrats — after warning democracy is under siege by Trump — are hypocrites. That’s inevitable in a rough-knocks political climate. Conservative media Wednesday evening was already looping on Democratic “dirty tricks” in Alaska. Any novice strategist could try to exploit the story to anger Alaskans and stall Peltola’s momentum; brand a possible Peltola victory as illegitimate; and foster the idea that all politicians are corrupt in order to make Trump’s long history of meddling seem like business as usual.

Sen. Sullivan told Sean Hannity Wednesday evening on Fox News that it was time for his Democratic opponent to “come clean.”

“She’s the corrupt one working with DC insiders to trick Alaskans,” Sen. Sullivan said. “So what we’re going to do is we’re going to make sure every single Alaskan knows about this.”

Election skulduggery has been part of America’s political story ever since Thomas Jefferson’s bitter 1800 election campaign against President John Adams. But this has been a devastating decade for faith in American democracy. Trump’s false claims that he was cheated out of power in 2020 became the foundation of his successful 2024 presidential run, suggesting many of his tens of millions of supporters bought into his false conspiracy theories. Trump appointees must still adopt the charade that President Joe Biden didn’t win that election.

And the president is up to his usual tricks days before Election Day, declaring that he’ll only recognize the result of the midterms if he considers them fair. A further blow to trust in the election system seems inevitable if Republicans lose their congressional majorities and Trump claims fraud to save face. And if Democrats played shady games in Alaska, they’ll deserve some of the blame.

There are more immediate questions that will play out before and after Election Day.

Are Alaskans really going to be confused by a duo of Dan Sullivans?

Would a Democratic win in a race that could be critical to the Senate’s destiny risk being overturned by any legal process brought by the administration, the Sullivan campaign or others?

And will revelations in the final days really change sufficient voters’ minds to transform the race?

The idea that Alaskans will struggle to tell the Dan Sullivans apart was undermined by a state Supreme Court ruling in June that declined to have Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, removed from the ballot also featuring Sen. Dan. S. Sullivan. And the ballot paper clearly identifies the latter as the Republican “incumbent.”

Some experts, meanwhile, believe that Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system — against which Trump has frequently railed — would eventually funnel votes meant for Sen. Dan Sullivan to their rightful recipient anyway.

The furor over the New York Times story and follow-up news coverage makes it even less likely voters will be befuddled by their ballot.

What then of the legal question?

The Department of Justice, acting on Trump’s orders, had already filed suit to block certification of the Senate result in Alaska should Sen. Sullivan lose — even though the Constitution gives the federal government and the president no role in administering state elections.

Attorney General Todd Blanche on Wednesday quickly brandished the New York Times report to signal an intensified legal battle. Asked on Fox News whether the candidate drama in the Last Frontier state was illegal, he answered, “It certainly should be. That’s why there’s an investigation, and that’s why we have law enforcement.”

But people are not prosecuted for something that “should be” illegal and isn’t. If a probe turns up nefarious activity in the race, there will be a case for a legal process under existing state or federal laws. But there’s no sign yet that’s applicable here based on current evidence.

“There’s no question that this is remarkably politically clumsy and embarrassing for (the Peltola) campaign,” Ben Ginsberg, a renowned election lawyer, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt on Wednesday. “But there’s not an illegality here. And for better or for worse, and actually for worse, coming up with phantom candidates, ghost candidates, is something both parties have probably done.”

But long odds never stopped Trump legal challenges and appeals before. Sen. Sullivan is entitled to any legal remedies under election laws. But the president has a particular flair for mounting frivolous legal challenges to delay undesirable consequences. If voters deliver a rebuke in the midterms, the Alaska affair is certain to run and run.

Ginsberg didn’t completely rule out the extraordinary scenario of a challenge to any Peltola victory when new senators arrive to be seated in the new Congress next year. This would stoke uproar and further poison an already toxic Capitol Hill. But Trump’s conduct in 2020 shows he may be willing to go the mat. And should the currently GOP-held Alaska seat decide who controls the Senate — a plausible scenario — it’s not hard to imagine that chaos could erupt.

Some Democrats may question the point of the alleged Dan Sullivan shopping spree that’s now casting a shadow over the endgame of a race in which Peltola seems well positioned. In a New York Times/Siena poll on Saturday, the Democrat held a 51 to 45% lead over Sullivan.

But Republicans now have an easy new campaign conceit — Democrats can’t win a fair election. “They’re trying to confuse voters, they’re trying to cheat because they know their policy agenda just doesn’t work for people in Alaska,” said Bryan Lanza, a former Trump adviser, effortlessly executing the layup on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” Wednesday.

It’s hard to judge in real time how this new twist in the case of the two Dan Sullivans influences the final hours of the bitter campaign. It does seem unlikely that vast numbers of voters will sudden switch their preferences.

But Alaskans could deliver an unequivocal result, and it’s up to them to decide who they want as their junior senator. In a democracy, especially in one as recently tested and abused as America’s, that’s exactly how it should be.

凯瑞·塔斯克/路透社

阿拉斯加民主党人给了唐纳德·特朗普他想要的一切。

总统抓住了这样一则报道引发的风暴：报道称，与参议院候选人玛丽·佩尔托拉结盟的民主党人试图通过招募一名与她同名的第二位候选人来混淆选民，从而影响她与现任共和党参议员丹·沙利文的竞争。

对于共和党人来说，这是一个严峻的选举季。周三，《纽约时报》的重磅消息创造了一个难得的机会，可以将中期选举的焦点从特朗普糟糕的支持率、高昂的汽油价格和不得人心的伊朗战争转移开来。

虽然这种所谓的选举舞弊行为卑劣且不尊重选民，但根据现有证据来看，似乎并不违法。阿拉斯加选民曾经在初选落败后，通过填写候选人姓名的方式投票支持丽莎·穆尔科斯基参议员连任，他们是一群精明的选民，不太可能被允许多方参与大选的特殊投票制度所迷惑。

但特朗普多年来一直捏造民主党作弊和根本不存在的选举舞弊的阴谋论。如今，他终于找到了一个可以用来构建暗示性叙事的“数据点”。无论丹·沙利文（Dan Sullivan）胜负如何，总统都一定会大肆渲染阿拉斯加的种种丑闻，声称民主党在各地都腐败——尤其是在共和党周二惨败的情况下。

“这是最高级别的选民欺诈……这种行为在我们的选举中绝不能继续下去，”特朗普在 Truth Social 上写道，为选举日做准备，同时呼吁将佩尔托拉“从选票中移除并予以起诉”。

阿拉斯加州选举官员周三告诉CNN，特朗普政府无权决定谁能参加该州的选举。“将候选人列入选票是州法律的问题，而不是联邦法律的问题，”发言人萨姆·柯蒂斯说。

但在政治领域，与法律不同，公众认知长期以来与现实同等重要。特朗普对此的理解比任何一位现代总统都更为深刻。

佩尔托拉的竞选团队否认在招募第二个丹·沙利文的过程中有任何不当行为。许多民主党人可能会认为阿拉斯加的这些闹剧是可以接受的——甚至可能将其视为该党多年来蛰伏的勇气和魄力终于突破冰封苔原的证据。

马克·谢费尔贝因/美联社

当然，特朗普的愤怒也显得有些牵强。毕竟，他曾试图推翻2020年的整个总统选举，包括要求佐治亚州选举官员“找出”足够的选票，让他赢得这个摇摆州。

然而，共和党人会指责民主党人——在警告民主正遭受特朗普围攻之后——是伪君子。在如今竞争激烈的政治环境下，这种情况不可避免。周三晚间，保守派媒体已经开始大肆报道民主党在阿拉斯加的“肮脏伎俩”。任何一个新手策略家都可能试图利用这一事件激怒阿拉斯加民众，阻碍佩尔托拉的竞选势头；将佩尔托拉可能的胜利贴上“非法”的标签；并散布“所有政客都腐败”的论调，从而使特朗普长期以来的干预显得理所当然。

参议员苏利文周三晚上在福克斯新闻频道告诉肖恩·汉尼提，他的民主党对手是时候“坦白交代”了。

“她才是那个与华盛顿内部人士勾结、欺骗阿拉斯加民众的腐败分子，”苏利文参议员说。“所以我们要做的是，确保每一位阿拉斯加民众都知道这件事。”

自托马斯·杰斐逊1800年与约翰·亚当斯总统那场激烈的总统竞选以来，选举舞弊就一直是美国政治史的一部分。但过去十年对美国民主的信任造成了毁灭性的打击。特朗普声称自己在2020年被骗下台，这一虚假说法成为他2024年成功竞选总统的基石，这表明他数千万的支持者中有很多都相信了他的阴谋论。特朗普任命的官员们至今仍不得不继续上演拜登总统没有赢得那次选举的闹剧。

距离大选日仅剩几天，总统又开始故伎重演，声称只有他认为中期选举公平公正，才会承认选举结果。如果共和党失去国会多数席位，而特朗普为了挽回颜面又声称存在舞弊，那么民众对选举制度的信任度将进一步受到打击。如果民主党在阿拉斯加搞了些见不得光的把戏，他们也难逃指责。

选举日前后还有一些更紧迫的问题需要解决。

阿拉斯加人真的会被两个丹·沙利文搞糊涂吗？

如果民主党在一场可能对参议院命运至关重要的选举中获胜，那么政府、苏利文竞选团队或其他方面提起的任何法律程序是否会推翻选举结果？

最后几天的爆料真的能改变足够多选民的想法，从而改变选情吗？

阿拉斯加州最高法院6月份的一项裁决削弱了阿拉斯加选民难以区分两位丹·沙利文的说法。该裁决拒绝将退休教师丹尼尔·J·沙利文从选票上移除，而另一位候选人是参议员丹·S·沙利文。选票上清楚地标明，后者是共和党“现任”议员。

与此同时，一些专家认为，阿拉斯加的排序复选投票制度（特朗普经常抨击该制度）最终还是会将原本投给参议员丹·沙利文的选票输送给其真正的受益人。

《纽约时报》的报道及其后续新闻报道引发的轩然大波，使得选民更不可能对选票感到困惑。

那么，法律问题又该如何解决呢？

根据特朗普的命令，司法部已经提起诉讼，试图阻止阿拉斯加州参议院选举结果的认证，以防苏利文参议员落败——尽管宪法没有赋予联邦政府和总统在管理州选举中任何角色。

周三，马萨诸塞州总检察长托德·布兰奇迅速拿出《纽约时报》的报道，表明他将加大法律战力度。当被福克斯新闻问及该州候选人闹剧是否违法时，他回答说：“这当然应该违法。正因如此，我们才展开调查，也正因如此，我们才需要执法部门。”

但人们不会因为某些“本应”违法却并非违法的事情而被起诉。如果调查发现选举中存在不法行为，那么根据现行的州或联邦法律，就可以启动法律程序。但根据目前的证据，尚无迹象表明这种情况适用于此案。

“毫无疑问，这对佩尔托拉竞选团队来说，在政治上极其笨拙且令人尴尬，”著名选举律师本·金斯伯格周三告诉CNN的凯西·亨特。“但这并不违法。而且不管好坏，实际上更糟糕的是，捏造虚假候选人、幽灵候选人，可能是两党都做过的事情。”

但以往特朗普的法律挑战和上诉从未被渺茫的胜算所阻挡。根据选举法，苏利文参议员有权寻求任何法律救济。但总统尤其擅长发起无理取闹的法律挑战，以拖延不利后果。如果选民在中期选举中予以否决，阿拉斯加事件必将旷日持久。

金斯伯格并没有完全排除明年新一届国会参议员就职时，佩尔托拉的胜选结果可能遭到挑战这种极端情况的可能性。这将引发轩然大波，进一步恶化本已剑拔弩张的国会山局势。但特朗普在2020年的所作所为表明，他或许会不惜一切代价。如果目前由共和党把持的阿拉斯加州席位最终决定参议院的控制权——这并非不可能——那么不难想象，届时将会爆发一场混乱。

一些民主党人可能会质疑丹·沙利文所谓的疯狂购物行为的意义，因为这件事如今给这场选战的最终结果蒙上了一层阴影，而佩尔托拉在这场选战中似乎占据了有利位置。周六《纽约时报》/锡耶纳学院的民调显示，这位民主党候选人以51%对45%的优势领先于沙利文。

但共和党人现在有了一个很容易套用的竞选新伎俩——民主党人无法赢得公平的选举。“他们试图混淆选民，试图作弊，因为他们知道他们的政策纲领对阿拉斯加人民根本行不通，”前特朗普顾问布莱恩·兰扎周三在“杰克·塔珀的领导力”节目中轻而易举地说道。

很难实时判断这两位丹·沙利文案件的新转折将如何影响这场激烈竞选的最后阶段。大量选民突然改变投票意向的可能性似乎不大。

但阿拉斯加选民可以做出明确的选择，最终由他们决定谁担任他们的初级参议员。在一个民主国家，尤其是在像美国这样近期经历过考验和滥用的民主国家，这才是应有的做法。