The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it is appealing U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason’s dismissal of its lawsuit challenging the Alaska Senate ballot. The case centers on the appearance of two candidates named Dan Sullivan, which the department argues could mislead voters and compromise ballot secrecy.
Legal hurdles and timeline
Judge Gleason, appointed by former President Obama, ruled the government lacked standing because it had not shown how its proposed remedy would address potential voter confusion without violating ballot secrecy. Attorneys for the department told Fox News Digital that even if the appeal succeeds, the government would still need to secure injunctive relief from the appeals court or return to district court for further action – a high legal bar given the election is set to close on Tuesday.
Expert commentary
Election attorney Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel in Virginia said, “Given the time available between now and close of polls, this is a heavy lift for the government.” He added that a successful appeal would still require specific judicial relief, likely involving additional district‑court proceedings.
Former federal prosecutor and ex‑Pentagon official Cully Stimson echoed concerns about the difficulty of obtaining immediate relief, noting the case falls under the Ninth Circuit, which will hear any appeal. “I’m not surprised the judge dismissed the case on standing,” Stimson said. “Whether an Obama‑appointed judge or any other judge, the legal standard is the same.”
Broader context and administration goals
The Department’s rapid‑response office released a statement emphasizing that the lawsuit aims to prevent voter confusion and protect the integrity of Alaska’s election. The statement noted that the government believes Daniel J. Sullivan entered the race as a frivolous candidate to mislead voters.
Legal analysts noted that the DOJ’s effort may also serve a longer‑term purpose: establishing a legal record that could support further proceedings after the election, once votes are counted. This strategy mirrors past DOJ actions where establishing a record was deemed essential for future enforcement.
Potential criminal investigation
Separately, a criminal investigation continues into the alleged recruitment of the second Sullivan candidate. Stimson cautioned that the outcome of the civil appeal is unlikely to affect the criminal probe, which could still yield evidence for additional legal action.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for North Florida Zack Smith said that if the Ninth Circuit does not act promptly, the DOJ could seek emergency review from the U.S. Supreme Court, though such moves are rare and typically reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
Historical parallels
Experts referenced the 2000 Bush v. Gore litigation, noting that federal courts have intervened in state elections when federal interests are at stake. While the Alaska case is unprecedented, the procedural mechanisms for expedited review are well‑known to the department.
Attorney Alex Charns, who has litigated against the DOJ for over a decade, expressed skepticism about the appeal’s chances, stating that the relief sought is unlikely to be possible now that voting has ended.
What’s next for Alaska voters
Alaskan voters will head to the polls on Tuesday, with the DOJ’s appeal pending. The department’s statement underscored that Alaskans deserve a fair election free from misleading ballot entries. Regardless of the appeal’s outcome, the criminal investigation will continue, and any findings could lead to further legal action.
Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
