Alaska Court Allows 'Decoy' Candidate to Join Primary Ballot

WHO:

CNN - The Alaska Supreme Court, U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, and a challenger with the same name and party affiliation.

ABC News Politics - The Alaska Supreme Court and the Republican U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan.

IJR - The Alaska Supreme Court and the Senate candidate with the same name as the incumbent.

WHAT:

CNN - The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the challenger is qualified to run for the Senate seat and ordered elections officials to place him on the August primary ballot.

ABC News Politics - The court ordered state officials to include the challenger on the ballot for the August primary.

CNN - The state court Judge Thomas Matthews found that the Division of Elections had “abused its discretion” in removing the challenger from the ballot.

CNN - The court's ruling affirmed Matthews’ decision but sent back the issue of how the challenger should be listed on the ballot to the Division of Elections.

WHERE:

CNN - Alaska.

WHEN:

CNN - The ruling was made on a Monday, and the primary is scheduled for August.

CNN - The Division of Elections issued a decision on June 15 regarding the challenger’s candidacy.

WHY:

CNN - The Division of Elections found the challenger’s candidacy was not filed in good faith and intended to confuse voters, but Matthews disagreed, stating the decision was not based on constitutional or state law requirements.

HOW:

CNN - The Alaska Supreme Court conducted a hearing on the case and issued a brief ruling shortly after arguments were presented.

(UPDATED June 30, 2026 01:40 UTC)

The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that a challenger to U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan is qualified to run for the Senate seat, ordering elections officials to include him on the ballot for the upcoming August primary. The court found that the Division of Elections had “abused its discretion” in previously removing the challenger, affirming the decision of Judge Thomas Matthews while sending back the issue of how the challenger should be listed on the ballot. This ruling comes after the Division of Elections claimed the candidacy was not filed in good faith, a point Matthews disagreed with, stating the decision did not align with constitutional or state law requirements.