The Department of Justice, ordered by President Donald Trump, filed a lawsuit on October 22 in an attempt to block the certification of the senate race in Alaska. The lawsuit serves as yet another attempt of the current administration’s efforts to undermine midterm outcomes across the country.
These midterm elections represent a chance to modify majorities in both chambers of Congress from Republican to Democrat. The lawsuit centers on the presence of two candidates with similar names. In addition to incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, an independent candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., a retired teacher, is running for the seat. The Trump administration alleges that the second candidate’s name could confuse voters and divert votes from the incumbent. It sought to prevent Alaska from certifying the election results if Sen. Sullivan lost under circumstances in which the other candidate’s vote total could have affected the outcome.
No legal basis was found for these accusations, as a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit this past Sunday, November 1st, citing the government lacked the legal standing to proceed.
Trump’s Department of Justice is increasingly utilized as an arm to bolster the President’s political operation and motives, one example includes the pursuit of lawsuits against Democrat-controlled states, and the direct targeting of political opponents ahead of the midterm election.
The Alaska scheme is no different, especially once analyzing the state’s voting procedure and policies. Alaskan voters use rank choice voting (RVC) during elections, meaning the most confused voters will still have the opportunity to vote for both candidates, which is more forgiving than a one-pick voting system. RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. For a candidate to win, they must receive a majority (50% + 1) of total votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority of 1st choice votes in the 1st round of counting, more rounds of counting continue until a candidate reaches a majority.
If a voter mistakenly ranks the wrong candidate as their first choice, their backup ranking still counts towards their intended candidate if their first was eliminated. For assessing voter confusion and intention, state DOJ officials have yet to ascertain their process of investigation in the above contexts, which may be impossible due to the anonymous nature of ballots.
Voting rights advocates fear and warn that these attempts to undermine the election before its yet to take place mirrors insurgent efforts by Trump during the 2020 election. The DOJ’s pursuit of actions increasingly frame them more as a legal unit of the Trump administration, rather than a department which utilizes ethics to enforce the law. These misaligned functions are a major flaw in the stated mission to protect the American people and their democracy.
If one may doubt the President’s role in the skew of maneuvers around tomorrow’s election, the words from Donald Trump himself should be proof enough: “I’m the one that said to do it” which he used to boast of his role in influencing the department, one meant to work as an impartial agency.
With Election Day on November 3, the Alaska case highlights the importance of clear election procedures, ballot access and the protection of voters’ rights. The outcome of the DOJ’s appeal could further shape the legal boundaries between federal oversight and state responsibility for administering elections.