Peltola campaign asks judge to dismiss Trump-directed Alaska election case

Response / context

The 14-page complaint, United States v. State of Alaska, No. 3:26-cv-00376-SLG, alleges that Daniel J. Sullivan intended to mislead the incumbent's supporters and invokes the National Voter Registration Act's election-integrity purpose and civil-enforcement provision. It asks the court to bar certification only if the incumbent loses and would have won had all votes for Daniel J. Sullivan instead been cast for him under Alaska's ranked-choice process, pending an investigation into voter intent and any further procedures the court orders. Those are DOJ's allegations and requested remedies, not findings. In their 29-page proposed dismissal motion, Alaskans for Mary and the DSCC argue that the NVRA regulates voter registration rather than ballot design or certification, that DOJ identifies no other authority for its claim, that the ballot and ranked-choice process undermine the alleged-confusion theory, and that the requested investigation of voter intent would conflict with the secret ballot and other voting rights. They also invoke the Supreme Court's Purcell principle against late judicial changes to election rules. Those are proposed intervenors' arguments, not findings. Their four-page emergency motion asks the judge to allow DOJ and Alaska to respond by October 27 and permit a reply the next day; the requested schedule is not itself an order. Attorney General Todd Blanche told CNN on October 25 that the government was trying to determine whether voter confusion violated law and said Trump was not trying to take over a state election. Daniel J. Sullivan has denied running to mislead voters. Alaska's courts previously allowed him to remain on the ballot; that ruling did not decide DOJ's federal theory. Reuters reported that election-law specialists questioned the suit's merits and the availability of its requested relief. Those assessments are legal opinions, not a ruling. The election has not occurred, no result has been certified, and no court order dismissing the case or blocking certification was identified at the Ledger's October 26 review.