Alaska Governor Orders Probe Into Alleged Ballot-Name Strategy in Senate Race
publishers 20articles 21first reported 29 Oct, 08:08 UTCdeveloping since 29 Oct · 4 editions
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has ordered an investigation into allegations that Democratic operatives sought to recruit a candidate with a name similar to Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan’s in an effort to confuse voters in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race.
The allegations center on Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher who appeared on the ballot alongside incumbent Dan S. Sullivan. The New York Times reported that people associated with Democratic candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign, her lawyers and senior Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee aides pushed to find a candidate who could draw votes from the Republican incumbent.
Peltola’s campaign committee, Alaskans for Mary, said it had “no involvement with either Sullivan campaign.” The DSCC also denied involvement with Daniel J. Sullivan.
ABC News, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the Justice Department has issued subpoenas to Democratic officials believed to be connected to the recruitment effort as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The Trump administration has also filed a civil lawsuit seeking to prevent Alaska from certifying the result if the Republican senator narrowly loses. A federal judge is expected to rule on that request.
Alaska’s Supreme Court previously upheld Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy as legal, while acknowledging arguments that it may not have been undertaken in good faith. Dunleavy said Thursday that the state’s election certification process could be “stopped or changed” because of the investigation. President Donald Trump has called for Peltola to be criminally charged and removed from the race.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 7 articles, 1 with the publisher's own text; 6 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one (5 if wire copies count as one too); this version written 18 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 20
- Source articles
- 21
- Given to the writer
- 7, 1 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 6 (5 if wire copies count as one)
- This version written
- 18 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →