‘Embarrassing and indefensible’: Trump’s Alaska appeal should be dismissed ASAP, voting advocates say

By Alexandra Hutzler

Prefer us on Google

to see more of our voting rights news coverage when you search.

A person holds a ballot sample a day before the US midterm elections in Anchorage, Alaska, on November 2, 2026. Democrat US Senate candidate Mary Peltola faces incumbent Republican US Senator Dan Sullivan in a highly contested race. A federal judge on November 1 tossed out an extremely unusual lawsuit by Trump's administration which contended that if Peltola beats the Sullivan, the result should not be certified because there is a third, minor candidate also called Dan Sullivan, which the lawsuit alleged was recruited to siphon off votes. (Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU / AFP via Getty Images)

The Trump administration’s “frivolous” attempt to revive its bid to undermine Alaska’s U.S. Senate race should be rejected immediately, pro-voting groups argued Monday.

The League of Women Voters of Alaska and Common Cause asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court’s order dismissing the Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit to block certification if Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola*.

“This appeal does not require full briefing,” the pro-voting groups wrote in a new filing. “The legal theory advanced by the United States here is embarrassing and indefensible. The Court should summarily affirm and then order the attorneys for the United States to explain why they or their client should not be sanctioned for pursuing a frivolous appeal.”

As of Monday afternoon, the Alaska Senate race remained too close to call, but an earlier analysis from the New York Times suggested Peltola is likely to win, which would add to Democrats’ sweeping midterms blue wave across the country.

The analysis also suggested that voters weren’t confused by the presence of two Dan Sullivans on the ballot, which was the central claim of the Trump administration’s lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason, in tossing the DOJ’s lawsuit on Nov. 1, said the department offered “no workable plan” for separating ballots or how to determine whether voters who backed longshot candidate Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. actually meant to support incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.

The DOJ quickly appealed the decision. 

Pro-voting groups said Monday that Gleason’s decision should be affirmed and the Trump administration should be ordered to explain why it filed “this abomination of a lawsuit.”

“Why wait until the eve of the election only to initiate a federal civil action seeking dramatically illegal relief based on an indefensible [National Voter Registration Act] theory that has absolutely no basis in law,” they wrote.

“And even if the United States were within shouting distance of a valid legal theory, summary affirmance would still be proper. The relief sought—indefinitely blocking the certification of an ongoing U.S. Senate election and running an inquisition into individual voters’ true intentions—was and remains completely illegal,” the groups added.

“It would disenfranchise voters. It would violate the right to a secret ballot. It would deter people from exercising their franchise for fear of government interrogation.”

*The Elias Law Group (ELG) represents the Peltola campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in this case. ELG Firm Chair Marc Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket.