Alaska Judge Dismisses Trump Bid to Void Senate Results Over 2 Dan Sullivans

Q: If a same-name candidate may have caused confusion, what legal remedy can courts use without exposing secret ballots?

Courts generally cannot fix alleged same-name voter confusion by pulling out individual ballots once they are cast, because secret-ballot rules mean ballots are mixed and cannot be traced back to voters without undermining anonymity. The legally safer remedy is usually prospective, not ballot-by-ballot. Before an election, a court can order clearer ballot design, fuller candidate identifiers, disclaimers, or other steps to reduce confusion. After an election, if there is proof that confusion was material and outcome-determinative, the typical remedy is a recount under state law, an election contest, or in extreme cases a new election — not an effort to identify which specific ballots were “confused.” That is why Alaska argued the Justice Department’s proposed segregation of ballots ranking Daniel J. Sullivan was both impractical and incompatible with ballot secrecy. State lawyers said even separated ballots would not show why a voter chose that candidate. Legal experts cited in related coverage made the same point: the only way to know whether a voter was confused would be to match ballot to voter and ask, which secret-ballot protections forbid. In short, courts can preserve evidence, allow normal recount and contest procedures, and, if warranted, order broader relief such as a new election. What they generally cannot do is surgically reassign or isolate supposedly mistaken secret ballots after they have been cast.

3 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Nov 1

Chief Judge Sharon Gleason threw out the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking to block certification of Alaska’s Senate race if incumbent Dan Sullivan lost because votes went to another candidate with the same name.
The suit, filed Oct. 22 at President Trump’s direction, asked the court to isolate ballots cast for retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan and determine whether those voters actually meant Senator Dan S. Sullivan.
Gleason said the federal government had no clear authority to override Alaska’s control of elections and that its proposed remedy conflicted with the secret ballot and was not workable.
Alaska had urged dismissal a day earlier, calling the request impossible and meritless, after officials said the state Supreme Court had already allowed Daniel J. Sullivan to remain on the ballot.