Three Bob Fergusons and two JFKs: A brief history of same-name ballot shenanigans

Before there were two Dan Sullivans, there were three Bob Fergusons.

In 2024, Washington’s Democratic state Attorney General Bob Ferguson was joined in the gubernatorial primary race by two other Democratic hopefuls with the same name.

Was it a coincidence? More like an age-old election trick that’s come up again in this year’s tightly contested Alaska US Senate race .

In Washington two years ago, a Republican activist had paid the other two Bob Fergusons to run in the hopes that their names on the ballot would confuse voters — an effort to weaken the attorney general’s candidacy. But the decoys ultimately dropped out after just a few days when the first Bob Ferguson, who went on to be elected governor, threatened legal action and publicly derided their candidacy as an “attack on our democracy.”

Now the tables have turned with Republicans accusing Democrats of a similar ploy in Alaska. A New York Times story Wednesday revealed that Democrats appeared to be behind having a potential Republican spoiler candidate, retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan, siphon votes from incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. The Justice Department has preemptively sued to block the results if the incumbent loses. Both Alaska and DOJ are investigating , and President Donald Trump has called for the criminal prosecution of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, writing in a Truth Social post that she should “suffer the Legal and Political consequences for what she has done.”

“So should the FAKE Dan Sullivan,” Trump wrote. “Nothing else will do!”

But there’s a long history of political operatives from both parties deploying the tactic — and largely getting away with it.

“It’s a time-honored tradition,” said Thomas Kahn, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.

“It’s not a good practice,” Kahn added, but “if trying to confuse voters was a crime, then every politician would be in jail.”

One century-old example of same-name ballot stacking came in the 1930 Nebraska Republican US senate primary, when incumbent George W. Norris was dismayed to suddenly see another George W. Norris, a grocery clerk, running. “I’m finished unless the other George W. Norris is kept off the ballot,” the incumbent senator said at the time .

It was ultimately a technicality that spoiled the candidacy for the spoiler grocer. Just as Sen. Norris prepared to withdraw from the Republican primary and run as an independent, the chief justice of the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the other Norris was ineligible because his petition had not been legally filed in time.

Perhaps no other same-name candidate was more opportunistic than the “other JFK.” Rather than a decoy deployed by the opposite party, John Francis Kennedy, a Gillette razor factory stockroom supervisor, was a private citizen who merely capitalized on the Massachusetts name recognition of then-Sen. John Fitzgerald Kennedy. John Francis filed for state treasurer in 1954 and won without any party endorsement or public campaigning.

The high school dropout from South Boston went on to win three terms. During his 1956 reelection bid, he was challenged by another political newcomer who entered the race because he was outraged that someone would pirate the good name of the Massachusetts senator. That candidate’s name was John M. Kennedy.

Simply possessing the same name as a candidate is constitutionally protected under ballot access rules. Criminality occurs when operatives cross into falsifying residency documents, laundering campaign funds or offering direct payments in exchange for filing.

That was the case in Florida in 2020. Authorities claimed that Republican state Sen. Frank Artiles recruited “ghost candidate” Alex Rodriguez with a $50,000 payment to run for office in the Florida legislature and to cause the Democratic incumbent with the same surname, Jose Javier Rodriguez, to lose the election by taking votes away in the razor-thin race. Alex Rodriguez received over 6,000 votes in the election, and Republican candidate Ileana Garcia beat the incumbent by just 32 votes.

Caroline Brehman/Pool/Getty Images

Artiles was ultimately convicted of excessive campaign contributions and procuring the falsification of a candidate oath form. Alex Rodriguez had sworn that he lived in the district’s limits when he actually resided in another county.

While Florida law permits ghost candidates but prohibits people making excessive amounts of campaign contributions over $1,000, Bob Ferguson leaned on an 81-year-old Washington state law that makes it a felony to challenge someone with the same name “and whose political reputation is widely known, with intent to confuse and mislead the electors” to get the other two Bob Fergusons to drop their candidacies after just 72 hours when he threatened legal action.

In Alaska, Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy said in a post on X that he would investigate if the “scheme” of recruiting a second Dan Sullivan to run “violated Alaska’s laws.” The Department of Justice last week preemptively filed a lawsuit seeking to block certification of Alaska’s US Senate election if the incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, asking the court to potentially delay the certification of the election if the incumbent is defeated but would have won if “all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan” had “been cast instead for Senator Sullivan.”

Legal experts have said the suit is unlikely to succeed. The state’s Supreme Court already ruled to keep the retired teacher on the ballot and Alaska’s Division of Elections sought to differentiate between the two Sullivans by listing the senator as the incumbent Republican and the other without a party affiliation.

Kerry Tasker/Reuters

Alaska’s top-four primary election process — where the top four vote-getters advance to the general election regardless of their partisan affiliations — and ranked-choice voting system make the state particularly susceptible to same-name and spoiler candidate hijinks. The ranked-choice system, however, allows voters to show a preference for more than one candidate, so even if voters were hypothetically confused about which Dan Sullivan to vote for, they could select both, which would still favor the incumbent senator over Peltola.

The August primary for Alaska’s Senate seat saw multiple efforts to boost minor candidates to hurt Peltola or the incumbent Sullivan. One group, Fair Deal Alaska, spent more than $800,000 attacking Peltola while promoting a lesser-known Democratic candidate and a Green Party candidate. A post-primary campaign finance filing revealed the group was mostly funded by the Senate Leadership Fund, the top GOP super PAC in Senate races.

And in 2024, Alaska’s Democratic Party sued to keep someone off the US House ballot: Eric Hafner, who has no apparent ties to the state and is serving time in a federal prison in New York. The Democratic Party argued that it and its preferred candidate — ironically, Peltola — would be harmed because having an unaffiliated Democrat on the ballot “would confuse voters.”

A divided state Supreme Court allowed Hafner to remain on the ballot. He is running again this year, also in the House race, and is on the November 3 ranked vote general election ballot.

CNN’s Patrick Svitek contributed reporting.

在出现两个丹·沙利文之前，曾有三个鲍勃·弗格森。

2024 年，华盛顿州民主党籍州检察长鲍勃·弗格森在州长初选中遇到了另外两位同名的民主党候选人。

这难道是巧合吗？更像是今年竞争激烈的阿拉斯加州联邦参议员选举中再次出现的古老选举伎俩。

两年前在华盛顿，一位共和党积极分子出资让另外两个鲍勃·弗格森参选，希望他们的名字出现在选票上能混淆选民——以此削弱总检察长的竞选。但仅仅几天后，当第一位鲍勃·弗格森（后来当选州长）威胁要采取法律行动，并公开抨击他们的参选是“对我们民主的攻击”时，这两个“诱饵”最终退出了竞选。

如今风向转变，共和党人指责民主党人在阿拉斯加也使用了类似的伎俩。《纽约时报》周三的一篇报道披露，民主党人似乎幕后操纵，安排一位潜在的共和党搅局者——退休教师丹尼尔·J·沙利文——试图从现任参议员丹·S·沙利文手中分走选票。司法部已先发制人提起诉讼，以阻止现任参议员败选后的结果生效。阿拉斯加州和司法部都在对此事进行调查，而唐纳德·特朗普总统则呼吁对民主党候选人玛丽·佩尔托拉提起刑事诉讼。他在Truth Social网站上发帖称，佩尔托拉应该“为她所做的一切承担法律和政治后果”。

“假丹·沙利文也应该如此，”特朗普写道。“除此之外别无他法！”

但两党的政治掮客长期以来都使用这种策略，而且大多都能逃脱惩罚。

“这是一项历史悠久的传统，”美国大学国会和总统研究中心主任托马斯·卡恩说道。

“这不是一种好做法，”卡恩补充道，“但是，如果试图迷惑选民是一种犯罪行为，那么每个政客都会被关进监狱。”

一百年前，内布拉斯加州共和党参议员初选中就出现了同名选票作弊的一个例子。当时，现任参议员乔治·W·诺里斯惊讶地发现，另一位名叫乔治·W·诺里斯的杂货店店员也参加了竞选。“除非把另一个乔治·W·诺里斯从选票上除名，否则我的政治生涯就结束了。”这位现任参议员当时说道。

最终，一个技术性问题毁掉了这位搅局者的竞选之路。就在诺里斯参议员准备退出共和党初选，以独立候选人身份参选之际，内布拉斯加州最高法院首席大法官裁定，另一位诺里斯没有资格参选，因为他的请愿书没有在规定时间内合法提交。

或许没有哪个同名候选人比“另一个肯尼迪”更具投机取巧之心。约翰·弗朗西斯·肯尼迪并非对方阵营派出的诱饵，这位吉列剃须刀厂的仓库主管只是利用了时任马萨诸塞州参议员约翰·菲茨杰拉德·肯尼迪的知名度。1954年，约翰·弗朗西斯竞选州财政部长，并在没有任何党派支持或公开竞选的情况下成功当选。

这位来自南波士顿的高中辍学生后来连任三届。1956年他竞选连任时，一位政坛新人向他发起挑战。这位新人参选的原因是，有人竟敢盗用这位马萨诸塞州参议员的名声，他对此感到愤慨。这位候选人名叫约翰·M·肯尼迪。

根据选票准入规则，仅因与候选人同名而受到宪法保护。但如果工作人员伪造居住证明、洗钱或提供直接付款以换取参选，则构成犯罪。

2020年佛罗里达州就发生了这样的事。当局声称，共和党州参议员弗兰克·阿蒂莱斯(Frank Artiles)支付了5万美元，招募了“幽灵候选人”亚历克斯·罗德里格斯(Alex Rodriguez)参选佛罗里达州议会，目的是在选情胶着的选举中，通过分散选票，导致与他同姓的民主党现任议员何塞·哈维尔·罗德里格斯(Jose Javier Rodriguez)落败。亚历克斯·罗德里格斯最终获得了6000多张选票，而共和党候选人伊莱亚娜·加西亚(Ileana Garcia)仅以32票的微弱优势击败了现任议员。

Caroline Brehman/Pool/Getty Images

阿蒂莱斯最终被判犯有竞选捐款过高和伪造候选人宣誓书的罪行。亚历克斯·罗德里格斯曾宣誓说他居住在该选区范围内，而实际上他居住在另一个县。

虽然佛罗里达州法律允许“幽灵候选人”参选，但禁止个人向竞选活动捐款超过 1000 美元，但鲍勃·弗格森却利用华盛顿州一项已有 81 年历史的法律，该法律规定，挑战同名人士“且其政治声誉广为人知，意图混淆和误导选民”属于重罪。鲍勃·弗格森以此为由，威胁采取法律行动，迫使另外两名鲍勃·弗格森在参选 72 小时后放弃竞选。

阿拉斯加州共和党州长迈克·邓利维在X网站上发帖称，他将调查招募第二个丹·沙利文参选的“阴谋”是否“违反了阿拉斯加州的法律”。上周，司法部先发制人地提起诉讼，试图阻止阿拉斯加州联邦参议员选举的认证，以防现任参议员丹·沙利文败选。司法部要求法院在现任参议员落败但“如果所有投给丹尼尔·J·沙利文的选票都投给了沙利文参议员，他本应获胜”的情况下，推迟选举结果的认证。

法律专家表示，这场诉讼不太可能成功。该州最高法院已经裁定这位退休教师的候选人资格得以保留，而阿拉斯加州选举部门则试图将两位苏利文区分开来，将其中一位参议员列为现任共和党人，另一位则被列为无党派人士。

凯瑞·塔斯克/路透社

阿拉斯加州的初选采用“前四名”制——得票最高的四位候选人无论党派归属如何都能晋级大选——加上排序复选制，使得该州特别容易出现同名候选人和“搅局者”等作弊行为。然而，排序复选制允许选民对多位候选人表示偏好，因此，即使选民对应该投票给哪位丹·沙利文感到困惑，他们也可以选择两位，这样仍然有利于现任参议员沙利文胜过佩尔托拉。

阿拉斯加州参议员席位的8月初选出现了多起扶持小党候选人以削弱佩尔托拉或现任参议员苏利文的行动。其中一个名为“公平交易阿拉斯加”（Fair Deal Alaska）的组织花费超过80万美元攻击佩尔托拉，同时支持一位名不见经传的民主党候选人和一位绿党候选人。初选后的竞选财务申报文件显示，该组织的大部分资金来自参议院领导基金（Senate Leadership Fund），这是共和党在参议院选举中最大的超级政治行动委员会。

2024年，阿拉斯加州民主党提起诉讼，试图阻止埃里克·哈夫纳（Eric Hafner）出现在美国众议院的选票上。哈夫纳与阿拉斯加州并无明显联系，目前正在纽约的一所联邦监狱服刑。民主党辩称，如果让一位无党派的民主党候选人出现在选票上，“会令选民感到困惑”，那么民主党及其属意的候选人——讽刺的是，佩尔托拉（Peltola）——的利益将会受到损害。

由于州最高法院意见分歧，哈夫纳得以继续留在选票上。他今年再次参选，同样是众议院议员竞选，并将出现在11月3日的排序复选制大选选票上。

美国有线电视新闻网 (CNN) 的帕特里克·斯维泰克 (Patrick Svitek) 提供了报道。