WASHINGTON, Oct 29 – Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has ordered an investigation into Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign following allegations that her team was involved in recruiting a second candidate with the same name as Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, raising questions about election integrity in a closely contested race that could help determine control of the U.S. Senate.
Dunleavy, a Republican, announced the decision in a social media post published overnight into Thursday, His order followed new revelations concerning Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg, Alaska, who is also seeking a place on the state’s Senate ballot.
The controversy has attracted national attention as Republicans and Democrats compete for control of the Senate in the 2026 midterm elections. President Donald Trump has called for criminal prosecution of Peltola and her campaign, while his administration has pursued legal action seeking to prevent Alaska from certifying an election victory for the Democratic candidate under certain circumstances.
In his announcement, Dunleavy pointed to reporting by The New York Times that described what he characterized as evidence of a coordinated effort to influence the election by recruiting candidates whose names could confuse voters. He said the allegations suggested an attempt to redirect votes away from the Republican incumbent.
“Deliberately tricking voters into casting their ballots for someone else strikes at the integrity of our elections,” Dunleavy wrote, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations.
The governor also said the newspaper’s reporting substantially supported earlier findings by Alaska’s elections board concerning the circumstances surrounding Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.’s candidacy. His decision places additional scrutiny on Peltola’s campaign as the state prepares for a Senate contest with potentially significant consequences for the balance of power in Washington.
Peltola, a former member of Congress, rejected the political significance of the allegations during a campaign stop in Soldotna. Speaking in a video posted online, she described the controversy as an attempt to divert attention from substantive issues facing Alaskan voters.
“This is just another distraction. It’s another diversion,” Peltola said, criticizing the attention given to the reporting. She also suggested that the coverage was intended to generate newspaper sales and subscriptions.
Her campaign did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on Dunleavy’s investigation early Thursday. The allegations, however, have become an increasingly prominent issue in a race already marked by disputes over ballot access, campaign strategy and the legal authority of state and federal officials.
At the center of the dispute is the candidacy of Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., whose name closely resembles that of Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent seeking reelection. The two names could create confusion for voters, particularly those who recognize the senator by his first and last name but are unfamiliar with the additional initials and suffix used by the other candidate.
Earlier this year, a senior Alaska elections official ruled Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. ineligible to appear on the primary ballot. The official concluded that his declaration of candidacy had been filed with the intention of creating confusion or misleading voters, potentially undermining the fairness and neutrality of the ballot.
The decision did not end the matter. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. challenged the ruling, and the case ultimately reached the Alaska Supreme Court. The state’s highest court ruled that he was qualified to run, allowing his candidacy to proceed despite the earlier determination by election officials.
Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher from Petersburg, has repeatedly denied that he entered the race at the request of Democrats or as part of a coordinated effort to damage the incumbent senator’s reelection prospects.
After announcing his candidacy in June, he said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign. He rejected suggestions that Democratic operatives had recruited him, insisting that there had been no communication between him and the campaign.
His denial has become an important element of the dispute, as the allegations against Peltola’s team have not, by themselves, established that he coordinated with the Democratic candidate or knowingly participated in an effort to confuse voters.
The names will be presented differently on Alaska’s ballots. Sen. Dan S. Sullivan will be identified as a registered Republican and as the incumbent, while Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. will appear without a party affiliation.
Those distinctions could help voters identify the candidates, although the similarity between their names remains central to the controversy. The case also raises broader questions about how election officials should handle candidates whose names resemble those of established officeholders, particularly when a close race could be affected by even a relatively small number of votes.
The New York Times reported that interviews, text messages and documents prepared in connection with a potential lawsuit indicated that Peltola’s team had sought to encourage additional candidates to enter the Senate contest. According to the newspaper’s account, the alleged strategy was intended to divide Republican support and weaken Sullivan’s position.
The reported material has intensified demands for further scrutiny of the campaign’s activities. However, the allegations remain disputed, and the legal and political consequences will depend on the evidence examined by investigators and any subsequent findings.
Trump has publicly escalated the controversy, demanding action against Peltola and her campaign. On Wednesday, when reporters asked him about the reporting, the president said, “I think they should be prosecuted.”
He had also used social media to call for Peltola to face what he described as the legal and political consequences of her actions. His comments followed an earlier directive involving the U.S. Department of Justice, which was instructed to pursue a lawsuit seeking to block certification of the Alaska Senate race.
The administration’s legal effort demands that Alaska be prevented from certifying a victory for Peltola if Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. remains on the state’s ballots. The dispute therefore extends beyond the campaign allegations themselves, touching on the certification process and the potential role of federal authorities in challenging the outcome of a state election.
Dunleavy’s investigation adds another layer to the dispute, bringing the Republican governor into a controversy that has already involved state election officials, the Alaska Supreme Court, the White House and the Department of Justice.
For Peltola, the allegations threaten to shift attention away from her campaign’s policy arguments and toward questions about its conduct. She has attempted to redirect the debate toward Sen. Sullivan’s record, including his support for the war in Iran, arguing that voters should focus on issues affecting the state and the country rather than the controversy surrounding the similarly named candidate.
For Republicans, the case presents an opportunity to challenge the conduct of a Democratic opponent while raising concerns about the fairness of the election process. The dispute is particularly consequential because control of the Senate is expected to depend on a limited number of competitive races across the country.
The investigation will now place greater attention on the evidence surrounding the alleged recruitment effort, the communications attributed to Peltola’s team and the circumstances that led Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. to enter the contest. Establishing whether any improper coordination occurred will be central to determining whether the allegations justify further legal action.
The Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling has already established that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. is legally qualified to run. Whether his candidacy was connected to an attempt to manipulate voter behavior remains a separate question that the investigation and any related proceedings may seek to address.
With the midterm elections approaching, the controversy is likely to remain a major issue in Alaska’s Senate contest. The outcome could influence not only the state’s political representation but also the broader struggle between Republicans and Democrats for control of the chamber.