Justice Department defends Alaska election certification after Sullivan's narrow victory

The Justice Department on Friday filed a brief defending a lawsuit that seeks to block the certification of Alaska’s 2026 U.S. Senate election, rejecting two motions to dismiss the case. The suit, filed by a coalition of Republican voters and allies of former President Donald Trump, asks a federal court to enjoin the state’s election results, which gave Democrat Mary Sullivan a narrow victory over Republican challenger James Kelley. The DOJ’s response argues that the plaintiffs have standing and that the court has jurisdiction to consider their claims of alleged voting irregularities.

The challenge stems from a wave of post‑election lawsuits launched by Trump‑aligned groups after the November 2026 midterms. In Alaska, the plaintiffs allege that the state’s use of universal mail‑in ballots, the handling of provisional ballots, and the timing of ballot tabulation violated federal election law and compromised the integrity of the race. Similar cases have been filed in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia, most of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence. The Alaska suit is notable because it is the first to draw a direct response from the Justice Department, signaling the administration’s willingness to defend the broader effort to contest results it deems suspect.

In its brief, the DOJ contended that the plaintiffs’ allegations, if proven, could have altered the outcome of a close contest that determines control of the Senate. The department cited prior rulings that allow courts to intervene when substantial procedural violations are shown. State officials, including Secretary of State Lisa Miller, called the lawsuit “baseless” and warned that any delay in seating the winner would undermine public confidence. Civil‑rights groups also criticized the move, saying it threatens the principle of one‑person‑one‑vote.

The case now moves toward a hearing on the merits, with a federal judge expected to rule on whether the lawsuit can proceed to discovery. If the court allows the challenge to continue, it could postpone Sullivan’s swearing‑in and set a precedent for future election disputes. Legal experts say the outcome will be watched closely, as it may shape how far courts will go in adjudicating election‑integrity claims in an increasingly polarized political climate.