The short version
- A federal judge rejected the Justice Department's pre-election lawsuit to block certification of Alaska's Senate race if the Republican incumbent loses.
- Critics argue the federal government is selectively enforcing election laws, ignoring similar third-party candidate strategies used by Democrats in other states.
- The intense scrutiny of Mary Peltola and Peggy Flanagan reflects broader patterns of heightened skepticism toward women of color in statewide political races.
Days before Alaskans cast their ballots in a pivotal US Senate contest, the federal government moved to intervene in the election process. At the request of Donald Trump, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the certification of Alaska’s results should Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan narrowly lose. A federal judge dismissed this suit on Sunday, though administration officials indicated plans to appeal the decision. The legal maneuvering represents an unprecedented attempt to influence the outcome before any votes have been counted.
The controversy centers on Mary Peltola, a Democrat and Alaska Native who currently holds a lead in polling data. Trump has publicly demanded that Peltola be removed from the ballot and face prosecution. Following these demands, Alaska’s Republican governor ordered an investigation into Peltola’s campaign operations. These actions have intensified scrutiny of the race, which is viewed as critical for determining whether Republicans can maintain their Senate majority for the remainder of the current presidential term.
Central to the federal government’s argument is a report alleging that operatives associated with Peltola’s campaign assisted in recruiting another candidate named Sullivan to split the Republican vote. Peltola and her team have denied these allegations. Under Alaska state law, such tactics are generally considered legal, and the state supreme court previously declined to remove the other Sullivan from the ballot. The federal intervention thus challenges established state legal precedents regarding third-party candidates.
Observers note that the strategy of leveraging third-party candidates to influence tight races is not unique to this election or party. In previous cycles, allies of Trump supported independent candidates like Kanye West and Jill Stein in swing states, arguing they siphoned votes from Democrats. Similarly, in the current cycle, Democratic-aligned groups have promoted Libertarian candidates in Ohio and Iowa, aiming to disrupt Republican leads. The Justice Department has not pursued legal action in those instances, leading critics to question the consistency of federal enforcement.
The selective nature of this intervention has drawn particular attention because it targets a Native American woman in a majority-white statewide race. Political scientists have documented how women of color often face heightened doubts about their electability, even when they enjoy strong support within their own communities. Primary voters and party officials may withhold backing due to fears that general-election swing voters will not support them, creating additional barriers for these candidates.
Research from Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics indicates that Native American women in politics endure significant stress and perform extra emotional labor due to their intersecting identities. Despite this, they remain among the least studied groups in political science. The current campaigns of Peltola and Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan, another Native American woman running for Senate, are testing these entrenched biases under intense public and media scrutiny.
Flanagan has faced similar challenges, including a retracted report from the Wall Street Journal that falsely claimed she inflated her credentials by asserting Phi Beta Kappa membership. Subsequent verification confirmed her induction in 2002, leading to a correction. These incidents highlight how Native American candidates are subjected to rigorous and sometimes erroneous examination during critical phases of their campaigns, potentially impacting voter perception.
The arithmetic of the Senate makes Alaska a focal point for Republican efforts to retain control. With a 53-47 majority, Republicans view Alaska as one of few toss-up races capable of deciding the chamber’s balance. Although Trump has carried the state in previous presidential elections, current polling suggests a majority of likely voters now disapprove of him. This shift complicates the political landscape and may explain the urgency behind federal intervention.
Alaska Native voters further complicate the narrative presented by federal officials. In the 2024 presidential race, the North Slope and Northwest Arctic district, where Alaska Natives constitute a majority, split its vote between Trump and Peltola. Many of these voters supported both candidates in different races, undermining claims that third-party interference is solely detrimental to one side. The method of federal intervention raises constitutional questions about the limits of executive power versus state authority in election certification.
As the election approaches, the outcome of this legal battle could set significant precedents for future contests. If the Justice Department’s appeal succeeds, it may establish a new model for federal oversight of state elections. Conversely, a final dismissal would reinforce state autonomy and reject the premise that pre-certification intervention is permissible. The race remains a bellwether for broader trends in American politics regarding minority representation and electoral integrity.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian US↗Spoiler candidates are nothing new in US politics. It’s clear why Trump is targeting Peltola | Petala Ironcloud
