Alaska U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman announced Friday that the Justice Department is investigating whether Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired school teacher running as an independent, was recruited by Democratic operatives to siphon votes from incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan. The probe follows a lawsuit the DOJ filed earlier this month to block certification of the Senate race if the vote margin favored the decoy candidate.

Trump indictment cited as legal precedent

Hans von Spakovsky, former Federal Election Commission commissioner and senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, told Fox News Digital that the 2023 indictment of President Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith set a clear precedent for the Alaska investigation. “The indictment is basically along exactly those same lines, claiming that Donald Trump was trying to defraud U.S. voters from fair and honest elections,” von Spakovsky said. “Jack Smith and Democrats set the precedent for the kind of investigation Justice Department is doing now.”

Alaska officials and the alleged scheme

Heyman, joined by FBI officials and Alaska State Troopers, said the investigation focuses on whether Democratic operatives tied to Sen. Mary Peltola’s campaign knowingly recruited Sullivan to confuse voters. The Justice Department previously sued Alaska election officials, seeking to block certification if Sen. Dan Sullivan lost by fewer votes than those cast for Daniel J. Sullivan. The lawsuit was amended Friday to reference reporting by The New York Times that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and senior aides of Peltola’s campaign allegedly worked to recruit candidates who could pull votes away from the incumbent.

“We are taking that extremely seriously,” Heyman said at the press conference. He added that the DOJ had issued more than 30 subpoenas in a 24‑hour span as part of the investigation, though he declined to specify any criminal charges.

Legal theories and potential charges

Von Spakovsky explained that prosecutors could rely on federal statutes used in the Trump case, such as conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights. In Trump’s indictment, prosecutors alleged fraud and deceit to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election and to deprive voters of having their lawful votes counted. Similar theories could apply in Alaska if evidence shows Democratic operatives knowingly recruited a candidate with the same name to mislead voters.

“The place you run into potential issues is not only if you just recruit a candidate, but you’re being paid to recruit that candidate, and you then provide services to help him run his campaign and organize it,” von Spakovsky said. Providing campaign assistance beyond volunteer work could constitute an in‑kind contribution subject to federal reporting rules, creating a separate campaign‑finance violation.

Critics warn of federal overreach

Aubrey Wieber, executive director of the progressive 907 Initiative, called the timing of the press conference – “on the eve of the election” – suspicious, suggesting the DOJ might be attempting to influence the outcome. “One could say it appears that they are trying to interfere in an election and put their thumb on the scale,” Wieber said.

Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation at the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, argued that the DOJ has no authority over state election law. “DOJ’s theory: two candidates named Sullivan might confuse voters. The Alaska Supreme Court settled that in June and the ballot labels the incumbent. DOJ has no role in state election law,” he said.

What’s next?

The Justice Department has not indicated whether any charges will be filed, and Heyman emphasized that the investigation remains ongoing. “I’m not making any assumptions on whether a crime has been committed or not. That’s why we are conducting that thorough investigation,” he said.

Alaska voters can expect further updates as the DOJ reviews subpoena responses and determines whether any federal statutes have been violated. The case underscores how the Trump administration’s legal battles continue to shape federal enforcement actions across the country.

Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.