Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy has ordered an investigation into whether Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign broke state law by helping recruit a namesake challenger to Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have denied any involvement in the recruitment effort.
A 2020 Florida election offers a useful comparison: a political strategist recruited a candidate who shared the incumbent’s surname in an effort to confuse voters. The resulting case helps explain the legal issues that could arise in Alaska.
What’s Going On in Alaska?
An explosive New York Times report connected text messages, interviews, and documents from the Peltola campaign to the recruitment of Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher. The alleged aim was to siphon votes from incumbent Dan Sullivan (R).
Shortly after the report was released, Governor Dunleavy directed the Alaska Department of Public Safety to investigate whether any state laws were violated and whether criminal charges or a lawsuit were warranted. President Donald Trump also demanded criminal prosecution.
Recruiting a ghost candidate does not, by itself, violate state or federal law. However, recruiting a candidate to siphon votes could violate campaign finance laws in certain circumstances. The Florida case illustrates that distinction.
The Florida Ghost Candidate Case
In 2020, Republican strategist Frank Artiles had a similar idea to what is alleged against Peltola. According to prosecutors, Artiles recruited Alex Rodriguez (not the baseball player) to run against the Democratic incumbent Jose Javier Rodriguez. The plan was to create confusion on the ballot so his candidate, Republican Ileana Garcia, could win.
The idea may have been successful, as Garcia won by 32 votes, with Alex Rodriguez receiving 6,382 votes.
However, the criminal charges were not for Alex Rodriguez being on the ballot. Prosecutors said Artiles paid Rodriguez about $44,000 in various ways. Artiles maintained that the transactions were legitimate business dealings or loans. The jury found that some payments were unlawful campaign contributions and convicted him of excessive contributions, conspiracy to make excessive contributions, and an oath-related offense.
In November 2024, a judge sentenced Artiles to 60 days in jail and five years of probation. However, the judge stayed the sentence pending appeal. That case is still before the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, which recently scheduled oral arguments.
Ileana Garcia served the full 2020–2022 term she won in the election involving the ghost candidate. She then won reelection in the 2022 redrawn District 36 and remains a Florida senator in 2026.
Could the Investigation Stop Alaska From Certifying a Winner?
Before the New York Times report appeared, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had already sued Alaska election officials. Trump has publicly said he ordered the lawsuit, which seeks to block certification of a Peltola victory if the other Dan Sullivan remains on the ballot.
The Alaska Supreme Court has already weighed in, previously ruling that the other Dan Sullivan qualified to appear on the ballot.
The DOJ is invoking the National Voter Registration Act in asking the federal court to deny certification. However, the NVRA does not involve which candidates appear on a ballot. Instead, it concerns voter registration. Its enforcement provision is not a general license for the president to supervise election outcomes.
Evidence of unlawful payments could raise additional legal issues, but it would not automatically establish grounds to block certification or overturn the result. The DOJ would still have to establish a legal basis for its requested federal injunction. A state law challenge based on a corrupt practice would require proof of the elements in Alaska’s election contest statute, including that the practice was sufficient to change the results.
Nor does a felony conviction automatically disqualify someone from the U.S. Senate. Any effort to overturn the election or remove Peltola from office would require a separate legal or constitutional process.
The Florida case illustrates the distinction at the heart of the Alaska controversy: recruiting a spoiler candidate and unlawfully financing that candidate are different things. The investigation will have to establish what happened in Alaska and whether it crossed that legal line.
