Dan Sullivan

The state of Alaska on Wednesday explained why it disqualified Dan J. Sullivan from appearing on the primary ballot, telling the state Superior Court that it has the authority under the U.S. Constitution to manage how elections are held.

Cori Mills, the state’s acting attorney general, also argued in the court filing that the Petersburg resident wants to “deliberately to confuse voters” by attempting to run as a Republican against U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, also a Republican.

“The U.S. Constitution does not require Alaska to place a candidate on the ballot where the preponderance of the evidence shows the candidate is seeking ballot access in order to compromise the fairness of the ballot,” Mills argues.

The case raises constitutional questions in a contest that could help determine control of the U.S. Senate after the November midterm elections. The Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have accused Democrats of encouraging Petersburg Sullivan to run, in order to benefit the incumbent senator’s top opponent, Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola.

What Mills describes as an “unprecedented situation” — an Alaska challenger seeking to use the identical name and party designation as the incumbent — is now before the state Superior Court in a fast-tracked case that could head to Alaska’s highest court.

Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, appealed to the Superior Court on Monday after the Alaska Division of Elections earlier this month rejected his bid to run for office.

Judge Thomas Matthews has agreed to fast-track the case. Tuesday at noon is the deadline for ballot printing and a final decision from the courts.

Matthews, calling the issue of “great public interest,” said arguments will be live-streamed Thursday at 10 a.m.

He’s racing to make a final decision in the event either side appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court in the coming days.

The state court system also took he unusual step of posting documents in the case to its website to make them widely available to the public.

Attorneys for Dan J. Sullivan have argued that he meets the qualifications under the U.S. Constitution to run for office, and that the Alaska Division of Elections is overstepping its authority by attempting to determine a candidate’s motives.

If upheld, the disqualification could have “disturbing” implications that allow the division to determine on a whim who runs for office, they argue.

The issue can be resolved simply by using the candidate’s differing middle initials, including Dan S. Sullivan for the senator, they argue.

“The thrust of the Division’s argument is that Mr. Sullivan’s presence on the ballot will be ’confusing‘ or ‘misleading’ because the Division believes that Mr. Sullivan has declared his candidacy in order to divert votes from Senator Sullivan,” the attorneys for Dan J. Sullivan argued in their motion on Monday.

But even if the division were correct, it does not eliminate the challenger’s right to appear on the ballot, they argue.

“... The division flatly lacks authority to speculate about a candidate’s motivations and utilize such speculation to exceed the scope of its lawful review of a candidate’s qualifications,” the attorneys for Dan J. Sullivan argued.

The state says it received allegations about Dan J. Sullivan’s “intent to deceive” voters from the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Evidence indicates that Dan J. Sullivan wanted to mislead voters, the state says, including that he mimicked the senator’s website and changed his party to Republican upon his declaration of candidacy though he’d never affiliated with the party.

The Alaska Division of Elections’ determination that Dan J. Sullivan’s declaration of candidacy was not filed in good faith meets U.S. constitutional requirements, the state argues.

Alaska has the constitutional authority to regulate the time, place and manner of elections, it argues.

“Appellant fails to carry his burden to prove a constitutional violation,” the state writes. “He cannot point to a single case — from the United States Supreme Court, any federal court of appeals, or any state court of last resort — holding that a good-faith-candidacy requirement constitutes an additional qualification for federal office.”

The state says using the initials on the ballot to distinguish between the candidates is not necessary.

“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” the state argues.

Dan J. Sullivan directed requests for comment on Wednesday to his attorneys.

Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Sullivan, has said he would not comment on ongoing litigation.