On October 22, the federal government sued Alaska to block the state from certifying the votes next month in the U.S. Senate race. U.S.A. v State of Alaska, 3:26cv-376. The basis for the lawsuit is that two candidates named Dan Sullivan are on the November ballot for U.S. Senate.
The federal government’s Complaint admits that the Alaska Supreme Court already told the Alaska Elections Division that it could not exclude Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot. The Alaska Supreme Court said it would explain its reasoning later, but has not done so yet. The new federal case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason, an Obama appointee. Here is the Complaint.
The incumbent U.S.Senator, a Republican, is on the ballot as Dan S. Sullivan, and his party label is shown as “Republican.” The other Sullivan is on the ballot as Daniel J. Sullivan, with no party label, even though he is also a registered Republican.
There have been many instances in history when two candidates with the same name, or almost the same name, ran against each other. States handle this problem in various ways. Some states give each candidate a number, which is placed on the ballot next to the candidates’ name. California prints the occupation of each candidate on the ballot. Many states put “incumbent” on the ballot if one of the candidates is the incumbent.
Sigh. I thought we (supporters of minor party and Independents’ right to run for office) had dodged a blow earlier this year when the Alaska Supreme Court had seemingly settled this controversy, but I guess I didn’t factor the Trump regime’s desperation into the mix. If the regime wins this case, they’ll set a precedent of booting minor party, Independent, and even non-Establishment major party candidates off the ballot for being “frivolous candidates” or for “trying to take votes” from one of the two major parties’ candidates. The Democrat appointed judge might just rule in the regime’s favor precisely to set such a precedent, given the so-called Democratic Party’s hostility towards minor parties such as the Greens.
On the one hand, state elections should not be a federal matter. On the other, federal congressional elections are very much a federal matter, particularly but not only when control of the US Senate may well hang in the balance.
The first step towards fixing this may well be to dissolve the USA into its constituent states, before dissolving those further.
Alaska is at least as well positioned as any state or better to go its own way as an independent nation, and one of the few that may not be too big to remain as a single nation state. It has under a million total population, which I would say is the upper limit for a sane nation.
Because of its physical size, it would still be ideal to dissolve it somewhat further, perhaps along Borough lines.
On the merits:
Blocking the Alaska results would be the right thing to do regardless of who wins in any case because not nearly enough was done to ensure marginal voters know which Can Sullivan they are voting for.
That’s the result of allowing far too many people to vote and then having unreasonable, out of touch with real world evidence expectations of how much they will study their voting choices and how well or correctly they will retain whatever they think they know when they are actually voting.
It’s also the result of having printed ballots, voting by candidate rather than party, multiple different offices voted on separately in one election, and many other proven bad idea’s, including having government units and numbers of people voting that are way too large for most of the people voting to personally know everyone who is running in real life.
Incremental moves in the directions I posit are welcome. We keep getting moves in the opposite directions, with predictably escalating negative outcomes.
Trump is correct here. Seating Peltola would promote tyranny rather than help stop it. For multiple reasons which are both process and outcome based,
Joshua H
“the regime wins this case, they’ll set a precedent of booting minor party, Independent, and even non-Establishment major party candidates off the ballot for being “frivolous candidates” or for “trying to take votes” from one of the two major parties’ candidates.”
Only if and when they intentionally confuse marginal voters with the name game. Hopefully that won’t be very often, particularly in federal elections.
Bear in mind my proposal would fix all that by having voters cast exactly one vote per election by standing with the people they most want to stand with, thus creating the parties on the spot, with the winning party appointing officeholders immediately after that until the following year’s election and substituting them at will during that time.
Ummm Stanley, every election is a state election. There are no federal elections. Congress is a deliberative body of the several states, not a separate legislature removed from the states. It’s called federalism for a reason.
That’s a nice theory, but not current reality. For that reason, among others, I’d do away with federalism and have a single, local level of government.
The USA was already too high in population at its founding to succeed, and at this point has several times more federal employees alone than any sane nation should have in total population.
To the extent that it was ever true, it stopped being true with the uncivil war, the 13th-15th improperly adopted constitutional amendments, the 17th amendment, various previous and subsequent court rulings, et tedious cetera.
The USA federalism experiment has failed miserably, particularly recently, and ever increasingly so, at an accelerating rate.
Indeed, at least some US founders foresaw this, although I doubt the utter extent thereof; see for example Thomas Jefferson:
“god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure”
That would have been over a dozen revolutions ago. Instead we’ve had devolution to something far worse than the 18th century British empire.