DOJ’s Alaska election theory could give Trump sweeping power over state elections, voting advocates warn

Voting rights groups warned a federal judge Saturday that the Trump administration’s effort to intervene in Alaska’s U.S. Senate election rests on a fringe legal theory that could give the president extraordinary power over state-run elections, if accepted by the court.

In a blistering filing, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the League of Women Voters of Alaska, Common Cause and two Alaska voters urged U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason to dismiss the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit with prejudice.

“Imagine if the federal executive could pluck a few words like ‘election integrity’ from some statutory preamble and, on that basis alone, bend the machinery of state elections to his will,” the filing states, including by “preemptively blocking certification of a U.S. Senate election to protect his preferred candidate from defeat.”

“Imagine that world and ask whether it is what the Framers wanted or precisely what they most feared,” the groups added.

DOJ sued Alaska last month over the presence of Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot alongside incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan. The department alleges Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy was designed to confuse voters and help Democratic nominee Mary Peltola.

DOJ is relying largely on a provision of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) stating that one purpose of the law is to “protect the integrity of the electoral process.” It has asked the court to prevent Alaska from certifying certain election results if alleged voter confusion could have changed the outcome.

The ACLU-backed intervenors argue that DOJ is attempting to transform language from the NVRA’s findings and purposes section into sweeping federal authority over ballot access and election certification — even though the statute’s substantive provisions deal with voter registration.

They also seized on remarks made Friday by U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman, who said federal and state law enforcement were working to ensure votes count as voters “meant and intended” them to.

The filing argues that such an investigation could threaten the secret ballot by subjecting voters to questioning from law enforcement about whom they intended to support.

“Pursuing ‘election integrity’ by sending armed government agents to question voters about how they chose to mark their ballots would be Orwellian and, indeed, illegal,” the groups wrote.

DOJ has said its immediate request is more limited: preserving and segregating ballots that may have been affected by confusion. But the intervenors argue the department’s ultimate requested relief still includes blocking certification while investigators determine what voters supposedly intended.

They also asked Gleason to consider sanctioning government lawyers, calling DOJ’s NVRA theory frivolous and accusing the department of repeatedly advancing claims without a valid legal basis.

“The federal courts and the separation of powers exist to ensure that can never happen. The rule of law exists to ensure that can never happen. The Constitution’s Elections Clause exists to ensure that can never happen,” the filing states. “The Amended Complaint must be immediately and forcefully dismissed.”