Political satire. The hotline, calls, and dialogue below are invented.
Thank you for calling the Election Integrity Hotline.
If your candidate won, press one.
If your candidate might lose, press two.
If you are a voter, please remain on hold.
The call about Alaska went straight to line two.
"I'd like to report a problem with an election."
"What happened?"
"Nothing yet."
The operator checked the manual. Until that morning, this had been a difficult category. Fortunately, management had added a tab marked GET AHEAD OF IT.
Press two for a future grievance
"What date did the incident occur?"
"November 3."
The operator looked at the calendar.
"You're calling about something that hasn't happened?"
"We'd rather not wait until the voters get involved."
She asked for the nature of the anticipated problem.
"Dan Sullivan could lose."
"Could he also win?"
"Of course."
"And would you still need this complaint?"
"What would we be complaining about?"
The operator opened two files. The first was labeled Election Integrity. The second contained the same paperwork with the word VICTORY at the top.
The caller approved the second file immediately.
She asked whether he would like to describe a problem with the voting process that would remain a problem under either outcome.
He asked to speak to a supervisor.
The Department of Which Dan
The supervisor began by asking which candidate was causing the concern.
"Dan Sullivan."
"And who are you trying to protect?"
"Dan Sullivan."
She reached for a fresh sheet of paper.
The caller explained that there were two Sullivans. One was the senator. The other was someone people might vote for while intending to vote for the senator.
"So you're worried about voter confusion."
"Exactly."
"And if the senator wins?"
"Alaskans are very smart people."
She wrote that down.
"And if he loses?"
"We have grave concerns about their ability to read."
The supervisor suggested clearer identification of the candidates.
The caller wanted something stronger. Perhaps a federal proceeding. Perhaps several. He was flexible about the paperwork, provided the outcome remained firm.
An assistant joined the call to ask whether they could solve the problem by renaming the second Sullivan.
"Who would get to choose the name?"
There was a brief struggle over the speakerphone.
OLD Dumpster Fire was now on the line.
"I'm very good at names."
The supervisor assured him that everyone had noticed.
Please hold for the electorate
The next problem was ranked-choice voting.
The supervisor explained that voters could rank candidates according to their preferences.
"I've already ranked them," Donald said.
"Those are your preferences."
"Yes."
"They get their own."
"Then what was the point of my endorsement?"
The assistant suggested moving on.
The operator returned with an important question. If someone had deliberately chosen the other Sullivan, would their choice still need correcting?
"We're trying to determine what voters really intended."
"They could tell you."
"Not all of them give helpful answers."
The operator asked what a helpful answer would look like.
The caller described the senator winning.
She looked again at the two files.
A quality-control manager then asked how the hotline would handle an objection from a Democrat.
The supervisor said they should use exactly the same procedure.
There was a long silence.
"Is that a training exercise?"
The operator finally reached the end of the form.
"Has the customer received the outcome they wanted?"
"Not yet."
She clicked NO.
The computer opened another complaint.
What the real lawsuit asks for
DOJ filed its complaint on October 22, ahead of the November 3 election. It asks for a certification pause if Sen. Dan Sullivan loses and would have won had all votes for the other Sullivan gone to him, with the ranked-choice count recalculated.[1][2]
DOJ alleges that the other candidacy is intended to confuse voters. Alaska election officials had tried to remove that candidate; the state Supreme Court restored him to the ballot.[2][3] These are disputed issues in litigation, not a finding that future votes are fraudulent.
For more from the complaints department: It's 2026. The 2020 evidence is still loading. and Donald Ordered to Participate in Lawsuit Donald Started..
Key Takeaways
- DOJ filed the case before Election Day.[1][2]
- Its requested pause depends on both the incumbent losing and a different ranked-choice outcome under its Sullivan-vote hypothetical.[2]
- Alaska's Supreme Court had already restored the other Sullivan to the ballot.[3]
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly does DOJ want?
It wants certification paused under the conditions described above, pending an investigation into whether votes for Daniel J. Sullivan were intended for the incumbent.[2]
Which Dan Sullivans are involved?
The dispute concerns incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and another candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. Democrat Mary Peltola is also running for the seat.[1][2]
Does filing this lawsuit itself stop certification?
No. The complaint asks a judge for relief. Filing that request is different from obtaining a court order.[2]
How does Alaska's ranked-choice count work?
Voters rank candidates. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the lowest candidate is eliminated and affected ballots count toward the next highest-ranked remaining candidate. Rounds continue as needed.[4]
Receipts
- CNN, October 23: DOJ sues over Alaska Senate certification
- DOJ complaint, filed October 22: Paragraphs 42-44 state the conditions and requested relief (PDF)
- Alaska Public Media, June 29: Alaska Supreme Court restores the other Sullivan to the ballot
- Alaska Division of Elections: Ranked-choice voting implementation
