Why the Alaska Senate race could be so slow — and controversial — to decide

Christian Moorman/Hans Lucas/AFP/Getty Images

After Election Day, all eyes in the political world could turn to Alaska.

Alaska has already been at the center of a roiling political controversy this week over how the second Dan Sullivan ended up on the state’s Senate ballot, which has sparked lawsuits, criminal investigations and threats to block certification of the election if incumbent GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan is defeated by Democrat Mary Peltola.

But the uproar about the Alaska Senate race could ratchet up to 11 if control of the Senate comes down to who wins in the state, one that election officials and experts say is unlike any other when it comes to voting.

That’s because it might take two weeks before a winner can be determined.

“Alaska does it different than everyone,” said Derek Tisler, counsel with the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program. “It’s such a unique state given its geography, given how remote it is and how expansive it is. So voters in all other 49 states are going to be a little confused about how things are done in Alaska when paying attention for the first time.”

There are several reasons why Alaska’s vote count could take longer than other states. For one, the state gives between 10 to 15 days for mailed ballots to be returned to the elections office (10 days if mailed within the US and 15 days from overseas). Secondly, the state uses a system called ranked choice voting to count votes, a process where the results won’t be finalized until after that 15-day period if no candidate receives 50% of the vote on the first ballot.

Should that occur, election officials and experts say it’s important for voters to remember that the process is supposed to take that long — especially because the waiting period can allow close elections to become a hotbed for misinformation over claims of cheating.

“If it does take these two weeks to find out the actual composition [of the results], this isn’t a ballot manipulation — it’s not an attempt to alter the results of the election,” said Russell Luke, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. “It’s simply how long it takes in Alaska. This is to be expected — it’s not extraordinary or outside the norm.”

Kerry Tasker/Reuters

Controversy swirled this week after The New York Times reported new details about Democratic involvement in getting Daniel J. Sullivan onto the Alaska Senate ballot, with the same name as the incumbent. Alaska GOP Gov. Mike Dunleavy launched an investigation into whether Democrats sought to confuse voters, and he said Thursday that if the probe finds “wrongdoing,” then certification of the Senate race results could be “stopped or changed.”

“We’re going to investigate,” Dunleavy, who launched a probe into the matter, told NewsNation . “We find out there’s wrongdoing and if that means that the certification then is stopped or changed, then that’s what happens.”

Election law experts say there is a path for Republicans to contest the results of the election through the courts, but that the governor’s certification of legitimate election results is not the way to do so.

“If any state authority — whether it’s a canvassing board or secretary of state or governor — wants to interfere with the rights of the voters by delaying or denying certification, the same thing will happen what’s happened in the past: Parties with standing are going to go to the court,” said David Becker, a former DOJ attorney and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “They’re going to get immediate relief.”

Derek Muller, an elections law professor at Notre Dame, said there’s a statute in Alaska law for a defeated candidate to contest an election in the event of misconduct, fraud or corruption to change the result of the election or “any corrupt practice as defined by law sufficient to change the results of the election.”

That standard would likely be a high bar for a defeated candidate to meet with the courts, Muller said, while also noting that it was a different process entirely than the governor trying not to certify the election.

If the governor refuses certification, Muller said, “the court can order somebody else to do it.”

The Trump administration has also threatened to block certification if Sullivan loses, with a preemptive lawsuit that was filed even before this week’s developments.

The Justice Department is leaning into the Times’ reporting about Democrats’ involvement in recruiting Daniel J. Sullivan to run, arguing it will confuse voters, though the lawsuit is seen as a longshot likely to fail. The state Supreme Court previously ruled ahead of the primary that the non-incumbent Sullivan could be on the ballot.

The judge in the case is considering requests from Alaska election officials, Democrats and outside groups to dismiss the lawsuit, and a ruling could come as soon as this weekend.

There is also speculation about whether some Senate Republicans might try to prevent Peltola from being sworn in should her victory be certified by the state and she show up January 3 when the new session of Congress convenes.

Such a dramatic move has never happened before. President Donald Trump has been vocally complaining about the Alaska race, something that could spur like-minded senators to try to act. But there is no evidence at this point it might happen.

Senate GOP aides refused to address the possibility that there might be an objection to or effort to block Peltola’s swearing in should she win the Alaska Senate race — or even say if there is a procedural mechanism they could use to block her.

Senate practices dictate that when a state certifies an election, the senator-elect provides that certification to the Secretary of the Senate for review. That person is then sworn in, typically by the vice president, with the other members who won their races.

If a challenge is made to the accuracy of the election results, the matter is referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration for investigation. The committee’s eventual findings and recommendations would then go back to the full Senate, which could expel the individual on a majority vote should they find there was wrongdoing or an inaccurate count in the election.

This was last an issue when Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, was first elected in 1996. She was sworn in even as her opponent alleged voter fraud. A lengthy Senate investigation cleared her.

A more recent controversial race decision played out in the courts: In 2008, Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, had a 215-vote lead after the initial vote count in Minnesota. A recount gave a 312-vote lead to Democrat Al Franken. Months of legal wrangling followed. It wasn’t until June 2009 that the Minnesota Supreme Court declared Franken the winner.

Alaska has long been one of the slowest states for reporting election results.

It’s a simple matter of geography: The state is massive, with residents in far-flung areas where ballots have to be flown in to be counted because communities aren’t on the state’s roadway network.

“This was common in Alaska to wait weeks on end for results in close races, even before ranked choice voting,” said David de la Fuente, deputy director for politics and research at the moderate think tank Third Way. “Alaska is one of the few states in the country that a substantial part of their population does not get to their job via personal vehicle.”

That remoteness is why the state gives mail ballot deadlines of 10 and 15 days after the election, so long as they are postmarked by Election Day.

The US Supreme Court took up a case this year that could have ended that practice, requiring all ballots to arrive by Election Day, but the court ruled against a Republican challenge to the practice of accepting ballots arriving after Election Day in Mississippi.

Luke, the University of Alaska professor, said that while vote counting in Alaska has always been slow, ranked choice voting “certainly exacerbates the issue,” because the state waits for the 15-day deadline to run out before running the ranked choice voting tabulation, which is required if no candidate receives 50% of the votes.

Eloise Brethes/AFP/Getty Images

Here’s how the process works: The votes of the fourth-place finisher are distributed among the top three vote getters, based on how voters rank the four candidates on the ballot. Then the votes of the third-place finisher are distributed to the top two vote-getters, which will put a candidate above the 50% threshold. (There is one other Republican, Gerald Heikes, on the ballot along with the two Sullivans and Peltola.)

“In this particular Senate race, that is the likeliest outcome — that neither candidate clearly receives a majority in the first round,” Luke said.

The same process could also play out in the state’s gubernatorial and House contests.

Ranked choice voting has been criticized by Republicans, including the president, who has questioned whether Peltola should be seated if she wins.

While some experts have argued that ranked choice voting actually protects the incumbent Sullivan — because voters can rank both Sullivans — the controversy could fuel efforts to end the use of ranked choice voting in Alaska.

In 2024, voters narrowly approved keeping the practice in a referendum. But it’s back on the ballot again in the state, meaning Alaska voters will be using ranked choice voting in the Sullivan-Peltola contest while deciding whether to keep the method for future elections.

CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Zachary B. Wolf contributed to this report.

克里斯蒂安·穆尔曼/汉斯·卢卡斯/法新社/盖蒂图片社

选举日过后，政界的目光可能会全部转向阿拉斯加。

本周，阿拉斯加州已经卷入了一场激烈的政治争议，起因是第二个丹·沙利文的名字出现在了该州的参议院选票上。这引发了诉讼、刑事调查，并威胁称，如果现任共和党参议员丹·沙利文被民主党人玛丽·佩尔托拉击败，选举结果将无法得到认证。

但如果参议院的控制权最终取决于谁赢得阿拉斯加州的选举，那么围绕阿拉斯加州参议员竞选的喧嚣可能会升级到11级。选举官员和专家表示，阿拉斯加州的投票方式与其他任何州都截然不同。

那是因为可能需要两周时间才能确定获胜者。

“阿拉斯加的选举方式与其他州截然不同，”布伦南中心选举与政府项目顾问德里克·蒂斯勒说。“鉴于其地理位置，阿拉斯加地处偏远，幅员辽阔，是一个非常独特的州。因此，其他49个州的选民在第一次关注阿拉斯加的选举方式时，可能会感到有些困惑。”

阿拉斯加州的计票时间可能比其他州更长，原因有几个。首先，该州给予邮寄选票10到15天的时间寄回选举办公室（美国境内邮寄为10天，海外邮寄为15天）。其次，该州采用排序复选制计票，如果在第一轮投票中没有候选人获得超过50%的选票，则最终结果要等到15天后才能确定。

如果这种情况发生，选举官员和专家表示，选民必须记住，选举过程本来就应该需要这么长时间——尤其是因为等待期可能会让势均力敌的选举成为有关舞弊指控的虚假信息的温床。

“如果真的需要两周时间才能确定最终结果，这并非操纵选票，也不是试图篡改选举结果，”阿拉斯加大学费尔班克斯分校政治学教授罗素·卢克表示，“这只是阿拉斯加的惯例。这是意料之中的事，并非异常或不寻常。”

凯瑞·塔斯克/路透社

本周，《纽约时报》披露了民主党人如何操纵选举，将丹尼尔·J·沙利文的名字与现任阿拉斯加州参议员的名字相同，此事引发了争议。阿拉斯加州共和党州长迈克·邓利维已启动调查，以查明民主党人是否试图混淆选民。他周四表示，如果调查发现“不当行为”，那么参议院选举结果的认证可能会“停止或更改”。

“我们会展开调查，”邓利维告诉NewsNation。他已就此事展开调查。“如果我们发现存在不当行为，如果这意味着认证将被停止或更改，那么就会这样做。”

选举法专家表示，共和党人可以通过法院途径对选举结果提出质疑，但州长对合法选举结果的认证并不是正确的途径。

“如果任何州级机构——无论是选举委员会、州务卿还是州长——想要通过拖延或拒绝认证来干涉选民的权利，那么就会发生过去发生过的事情：有诉讼资格的各方将会诉诸法庭，”前司法部律师、选举创新与研究中心创始人戴维·贝克尔说。“他们将立即获得救济。”

圣母大学选举法教授德里克·穆勒表示，阿拉斯加州法律中有一项法令规定，如果选举中存在不当行为、欺诈或腐败行为，导致选举结果发生改变，或者存在“任何足以改变选举结果的、法律定义的腐败行为”，落选候选人可以对选举结果提出质疑。

穆勒表示，对于落选候选人来说，要达到这样的标准可能是一个很高的门槛，但他同时指出，这与州长试图不认证选举结果的过程完全不同。

穆勒说，如果州长拒绝认证，“法院可以命令其他人来做这件事”。

特朗普政府还威胁说，如果沙利文败诉，将阻止认证，甚至在本周事态发展之前就已提起先发制人的诉讼。

司法部正着力调查《纽约时报》关于民主党参与招募丹尼尔·J·沙利文参选的报道，认为这会混淆选民，但这场诉讼胜算渺茫，很可能失败。此前，州最高法院在初选前裁定，非现任议员沙利文可以出现在选票上。

该案法官正在考虑阿拉斯加州选举官员、民主党人和外部团体提出的驳回诉讼的请求，最早可能在本周末做出裁决。

还有人猜测，如果佩尔托拉的胜选得到州政府的认证，并且她在1月3日国会新一届会议召开时出席，一些参议院共和党人可能会试图阻止她宣誓就职。

如此戏剧性的举动前所未有。唐纳德·特朗普总统一直公开抱怨阿拉斯加州的选举结果，这可能会促使一些持相同观点的参议员采取行动。但目前尚无任何迹象表明这种情况会发生。

参议院共和党助手拒绝回应如果佩尔托拉赢得阿拉斯加州参议员竞选，是否有人会反对或试图阻止她宣誓就职——甚至拒绝透露他们是否有程序机制可以阻止她。

根据参议院惯例，当一个州确认选举结果后，当选参议员需将该确认函提交参议院秘书审核。之后，当选参议员通常由副总统主持宣誓就职，与其他当选议员一同宣誓就职。

如果有人对选举结果的准确性提出质疑，此事将提交规则与行政委员会进行调查。委员会最终的调查结果和建议将提交参议院全体会议，如果发现存在舞弊行为或计票不准确，参议院可以以多数票将相关人员驱逐出境。

上一次出现这个问题是在1996年路易斯安那州民主党参议员玛丽·兰德里厄首次当选时。当时，她的对手指控存在选民舞弊，但她仍然宣誓就职。经过参议院的长期调查，最终证明她的清白。

最近一起备受争议的选举结果诉诸法庭：2008年，明尼苏达州初选计票结束后，共和党候选人诺姆·科尔曼领先215票。重新计票后，民主党候选人阿尔·弗兰肯领先312票。随后，双方展开了数月的法律诉讼。直到2009年6月，明尼苏达州最高法院才最终宣布弗兰肯胜选。

阿拉斯加州长期以来一直是公布选举结果最慢的州之一。

这其实是地理因素造成的：该州幅员辽阔，居民居住在偏远地区，由于这些社区不在州公路网内，选票必须空运到这些地区进行计票。

“在阿拉斯加，即使在排序复选制投票制度实施之前，选情胶着的选举结果往往要等上好几周才能出来，这种情况也很常见，”温和派智库“第三条道路”的政治与研究副主任大卫·德拉富恩特说。“阿拉斯加是美国少数几个相当一部分居民不开车上班的州之一。”

正是由于地处偏远，该州才规定邮寄选票的截止日期为选举日后的 10 天和 15 天，只要邮戳日期不晚于选举日即可。

今年，美国最高法院受理了一起可能终止该做法的案件，要求所有选票必须在选举日之前送达，但法院驳回了共和党对密西西比州接受选举日后送达选票做法的挑战。

阿拉斯加大学教授卢克表示，虽然阿拉斯加的计票速度一直很慢，但排序复选制投票“无疑加剧了这个问题”，因为该州要等到 15 天的截止日期过后才会进行排序复选制投票的计票，而如果没有候选人获得 50% 的选票，则必须进行排序复选制投票的计票。

Eloise Brethes/法新社/盖蒂图片社

具体流程如下：得票第四名的选票将根据选民对四位候选人的排名，分配给得票最高的三位候选人。然后，得票第三名的选票将分配给得票最高的两位候选人，这样就能使一位候选人的得票率超过50%。（除了两位苏利文和佩尔托拉之外，选票上还有另一位共和党候选人杰拉尔德·海克斯。）

卢克说：“在这场参议院选举中，最有可能的结果就是两位候选人都无法在第一轮投票中获得明显的多数票。”

同样的流程也可能在州长和众议员的竞选中上演。

排序复选投票制受到了共和党人的批评，其中包括总统本人。总统质疑，如果佩尔托拉获胜，她是否应该就任。

虽然一些专家认为排序复选投票实际上保护了现任议员沙利文——因为选民可以对两位沙利文进行排序——但这场争议可能会推动阿拉斯加终止使用排序复选投票的努力。

2024年，选民在全民公投中以微弱优势批准保留这一做法。但该州再次就此进行投票表决，这意味着阿拉斯加选民将在苏利文-佩尔托拉的竞选中使用排序复选制，同时决定是否在未来的选举中继续采用这种方法。

CNN的蒂尔尼·斯尼德和扎卡里·B·沃尔夫对本报道亦有贡献。