Elections Division refuses to explain Petersburg Sullivan’s missing Republican label after state Supreme Court scrutiny
Sullivan is publicly listed as a Republican in state election records. His ballot line shows no party affiliation.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) - Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan is back on the ballot after the state Supreme Court sided with him, but he appears without a party affiliation — the only candidate on the U.S. Senate primary ballot without one. His name also appears differently than he originally filed.
After Division of Elections staff did not explain the decision and did not respond to request for comment, Alaska’s News Source went to the Division’s Anchorage offices Tuesday seeking answers.
MORE: Petersburg rallies behind candidate, who declines KTUU interview
“I’m sure you’re recording me right now, so I’m not giving you anything,” Division of Elections Public Relations Manager Steve Kirch told Alaska’s News Source via intercom at his office, after not responding to an email or phone call earlier the same day.
“I can’t give you any kind of comment that you will be looking for right now,” he said. “So, if I hear something, I’ll keep you in the queue. I’ve got your emails.”
When asked who could answer the question, Kirch said to direct questions to him. Alaska’s News Source noted the ballot is a public document and asked again. Kirch then hung up the intercom.
The latest response comes as Division of Elections leaders and staff have declined to comment on its decisions in this case on multiple occasions.
During Monday’s Supreme Court oral arguments, state Supreme Court justices said his party affiliation shouldn’t be excluded.
“The [election] division’s proposal not to list him as Republican after certifying his declaration of candidacy as a Republican would appear to be a little outside its discretion, wouldn’t it?” Chief Justice Susan Carney asked during the hearing. " Don’t they have to list him as a Republican?”
The Division’s attorney, Christopher Murray, disagreed, citing an election law provision that says a candidate must be registered “as affiliated with a political party or group.”
“If ... he ever registered with the Republican Party, he did it when he filed his declaration of candidacy,” Murray said.
“But he’s registered,” Justice Jennifer Henderson responded. Carney concurred.
Sullivan is publicly listed as a Republican on state elections division records. Alaska’s News Source has confirmed this through the Alaska Voter Portal.
“I don’t see anything in this subsection that allows the division to force someone to have a descriptor in terms of affiliation, political affiliation, that is contrary to what they’ve requested,” Henderson said.
“I agree with you,” Murray replied. " We suggested that he be listed as nonpartisan, [but] I will say that that’s a product of speed [and] that’s simply not correct."
“I think he could be listed as Republican or nothing at all,” Murray said.
But when ballots began printing at noon Tuesday, “nothing at all” is what appears next to his name. The Elections Division has not told Alaska’s News Source where the ballots are being printed.
The one-paragraph order from Alaska’s highest court affirmed a June 26 Superior Court ruling which placed Sullivan back on the ballot after the Division of Elections removed him. The court also directed the Division to determine how Sullivan will appear on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”
A full opinion is expected to be issued at a later date.
Previous coverage:
House leaders search for answers on state decision to remove Dan Sullivan challenger from ballot
“Alaska law expressly allows Mr. Sullivan to choose to be listed on the ballot as a Republican-affiliated candidate, as he has done, and provides for his listing as Nonpartisan only if Mr. Sullivan “would prefer” that," Sullivan’s attorney Jeffrey Wright wrote in a brief to the court, “[Alaska law] cites no legal authority for stripping Mr. Sullivan of that right.”
In a text message to Alaska’s News Source on Tuesday, Sullivan wrote that he “has been buoyed by yesterday’s decisive victory at the Alaska Supreme Court.”
Sullivan added he had no comment “to the extent that the Division of Elections is still grappling with how it will properly effectuate ballot design in a manner consistent with Alaska law and past practice.”
Petersburg’s Sullivan has spoken with several other Alaska media outlets but has not spoken with Alaska’s News Source about his campaign.
Alaska’s News Source reached out to Sullivan’s attorneys Tuesday. Attorney Bryn Pallesen answered a call but said she was “not able to comment.”
Sullivan previously told an Alaska’s News Source crew visiting Petersburg he was not speaking to the station, saying he found its outreach aggressive. At the time, he said he did not want to jeopardize his then-active legal case.
How we got here
Sullivan entered the race as a Republican at the end of May. Elections Director Carol Beecher removed him from the ballot on June 15, citing four reasons:
- Choosing the name “Dan Sullivan” was intended to “confuse” voters into associating him with another candidate.
- His party choice “strongly suggests an intent to confuse” himself with the incumbent senator.
- His campaign imagery “appears to be [a] deliberate” copy of the senator’s.
- His use of a political consultant who has previously advocated for Democrat Mary Peltola, who is running for the same Senate seat.
The state had argued candidates must file in “good faith” — a standard the Division of Elections used to justify Sullivan’s removal. The Supreme Court’s order does not address that standard directly; the full legal reasoning will come in a later opinion.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews had reached the same conclusion in his June 26 ruling, writing the “good-faith” criteria was new and “previously unstated,” and the evidence Sullivan tried to confuse voters “is not supported by a preponderance of evidence” and that “the division accepted at face-value the assertions of the complaint, and disregarded Mr. Sullivan’s assertions.”
Critics of the Division’s decision had warned the removal could raise constitutional questions. Legislative Counsel Andrew Dunmire, in a five-page memo, wrote that imposing a “good faith” requirement on candidates “would improperly add to the exclusive list of Constitutional qualifications.” State Sens. Bill Wielechowski and Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage, and House Judiciary Chair Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, had each raised similar concerns.
Sullivan’s attorney, Jeffrey Robinson, had argued the Division’s standard was impermissibly subjective.
“By contrast, a rule that says you may not run if we think your motive is to confuse voters is ... subjective, right? It requires a finding of intent ... and most problematically, it’s discretionary in a way that can be used to advantage incumbents,” Robinson said during Monday’s oral arguments.
State attorney Christopher Murray had defended the Division’s authority, arguing the key question was whether Sullivan had “properly filed.”
“Its job is to make sure voters have a right to have their votes counted for the candidate they want to vote for, and the division has to do what it can to make sure that happens. Its concerns here are legitimate,” Murray told the court.
See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com
Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved.
