DOJ Fights to Delay Alaska and California Election Results
Left says
- •A federal judge in California found the DOJ's bid to segregate 20,000 ballots lacked legal merit, calling the government's methodology for identifying noncitizens vague and unreliable, with Los Angeles County finding many on the list don't even have active voter registrations.
- •The administration is seeking unprecedented federal intrusion into state-run elections just days before voting concludes, which the judge said could disenfranchise eligible citizens and create chaos if either party weaponized the tactic for political ends.
- •In Alaska, the DOJ lawsuit appears designed to protect a sitting Republican senator by delaying certification only in the scenario where he loses, using a statute a legal expert says doesn't even authorize the DOJ to block certification.
- •Trump personally directed the Alaska lawsuit and mocked the second candidate as 'the fake,' underscoring that the legal action is aimed at overturning an unfavorable outcome rather than neutrally enforcing election law.
Right says
- •The DOJ argues that a California voter list was built through a careful multi-step process including data cleaning, USCIS review, and law-enforcement screening to flag likely noncitizens who should not have their ballots counted alongside legitimate votes.
- •Federal officials maintain that ensuring only citizens vote protects the integrity of elections for everyone, and they plan to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit rather than abandon the effort.
- •In Alaska, the government contends that a same-named candidate was intentionally added to the ballot to confuse voters and dilute support for the Republican incumbent, and that voter confusion genuinely could have altered the outcome.
- •Alaska's Division of Elections itself determined that the second Sullivan's candidacy was intended to mislead voters, giving the DOJ a factual basis for seeking a certification delay to investigate the matter.
Common Take
High Consensus- Both disputes center on DOJ efforts to intervene in state-run elections shortly before or during certification, a highly unusual use of federal authority.
- Legal experts on multiple sides question whether the cited statutes actually give the DOJ authority to force the outcomes it's seeking in either case.
- Both cases involve genuine confusion or disputed facts — an unverified noncitizen list in California and a same-named candidate in Alaska — that complicate straightforward resolution.
- Everyone involved agrees that voter trust and the accuracy of election results matter and that disenfranchising eligible voters would be a serious harm.
The Arguments
Right argues
The DOJ's California voter list wasn't arbitrary — it was built through a documented multi-step process involving data cleaning, USCIS verification, and law-enforcement screening, giving the government a reasonable basis to question whether those ballots came from eligible voters.
Left counters
A judge found the methodology 'vague' and unreliable, and Los Angeles County's own review showed many people on the list didn't even have active voter registrations, undermining the claim that the process was rigorous.
Left argues
A federal court found that segregating 20,000 ballots days before an election would risk disenfranchising eligible citizens and could set a precedent for either party to weaponize unproven allegations to disrupt elections, which is why the judge called it unprecedented federal overreach into state-run elections.
Right counters
Protecting the integrity of the vote means verifying that only citizens are counted; the DOJ views this as a legitimate check on fraud, not an attempt to disrupt the process, and intends to pursue the matter further at the Ninth Circuit rather than concede the issue.
Right argues
Alaska's own Division of Elections determined that the second Sullivan's candidacy was designed to mislead voters, giving the DOJ a factual, state-sanctioned basis for seeking to delay certification while the confusion is investigated.
Left counters
A legal expert notes that the statute DOJ invoked doesn't actually authorize the agency to block certification, and the lawsuit conspicuously only seeks a delay in the scenario where the Republican incumbent loses, suggesting the goal is protecting an outcome rather than neutrally enforcing election law.
Left argues
Trump's direct involvement in ordering the Alaska lawsuit and his dismissive mockery of the rival candidate as 'the fake' reveal that the legal action is a political maneuver to reverse an unfavorable result, not a neutral safeguard of electoral integrity.
Right counters
Genuine voter confusion over two candidates sharing the same name is a real risk that could legitimately alter election outcomes, and flagging that risk — regardless of who raises it — is a valid basis for seeking clarity before results are finalized.
Right argues
The DOJ's willingness to appeal the California ruling to the Ninth Circuit shows a continued, good-faith commitment to resolving a substantive legal question about noncitizen voting rather than abandoning a meritless claim.
Left counters
The judge noted the DOJ has filed at least 31 similar lawsuits nationwide seeking complete voter rolls and has not won any of them, suggesting a pattern of legally unsupported challenges rather than isolated, good-faith litigation.
Challenge Questions
These questions target genuine internal contradictions — meant to provoke honest reflection.
Right asks Left
“If courts and election officials are trusted to catch genuine irregularities after the fact through prosecution, as the judge suggested, does that standard apply equally when Democratic-aligned officials are accused of comparable irregularities, or only when Republican administrations raise the concern?”
Left asks Right
“If the DOJ's Alaska lawsuit is genuinely about preventing voter confusion rather than protecting a specific outcome, why does the requested certification delay apply only to the scenario in which the Republican incumbent loses?”
Outlier Report
Left Fringe
Commentators like those at MSNBC and figures such as Marc Elias who frame this as proof of systematic GOP election subversion represent roughly 15-20% of the left, going further than the median Democrat who sees this as concerning but likely to fail in court.
Right Fringe
Figures like Mike Davis and some America First Legal-aligned commentators who argue the judiciary itself is complicit in enabling noncitizen voting and that DOJ should press forward regardless of this ruling represent about 15-20% of the right, more extreme than mainstream Republicans who are more measured about pursuing legal appeals.
Noise Assessment
High noise ratio: cable news and social media amplify both 'DOJ tries to steal election' and 'Democrats let illegals vote' framings far beyond what most persuadable voters actually believe, with the actual public more focused on practical concerns like disenfranchisement risk and electoral fairness than the maximalist rhetoric from either side.
Sources (8)
<p>The <a href="https://www.axios.com/politics-policy/donald-trump" target="_blank">Trump</a> administration sued <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/09/03/alaska-oil-revival-warming-future" target="_blank">Alaska</a> on Thursday to delay certification of election results if incumbent Republican Sen. <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/03/09/alaska-senate-dan-sullivan-peltola-ads" target="_blank">Dan Sullivan</a> loses.</p><p><strong>Why it matters:</strong> The race between incumbent Sullivan, Democrat <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/09/28/peltola-expose-gop-attack-ad-sullivan-senate-alaska" target="_blank">Mary Peltola</a>, and retired teacher <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/us/politics/dan-sullivan-alaska-senate-primary.html" target="_blank">Dan Sullivan</a> has been marked by controversy, with Republicans accusing Democrats of trying to confuse voters by planting a candidate with the same name.</p><hr /><ul><li>Alaska's use of ranked-choice voting, which <a href="https://www.facebook.com/akelections/posts/26general-are-you-a-first-time-alaskan-voter-here-is-guide-on-how-to-vote-your-b/1420464106938465/" target="_blank">eliminates candidates in rounds</a> if no one gets 50% of the initial vote, complicates matters. </li><li>"An election result may be impacted by voter confusion if: (1) Senator Sullivan does not win the election; and (2) had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast instead for Senator Sullivan and Alaska's rank-choice process played out accordingly, Senator Sullivan would have won the election," the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28830876-sullivan-ak-suit/" target="_blank">lawsuit</a>, filed in Alaska District Court, states. </li></ul><p><strong>Zoom in: </strong>Because of a previous Alaska Supreme Court decision and Sullivan's name already being on the ballot, the administration contended in the lawsuit that the only means to ensure that the winner of the race is voters' choice "is to ensure that the certification is not impacted" by his candidacy.</p><ul><li>The lawsuit requests a delay in certification until after an investigation determines "whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan."</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying:</strong> "Alaska's Division of Elections determined that Mr. Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy was intended to mislead voters and compromise the fairness of the ballot," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement.</p><ul><li>"Therefore, the Justice Department, consistent with the National Voter Registration Act enacted by Congress, is taking the necessary steps to ensure that this frivolous candidacy does not undermine the integrity of Alaska's election or the will of its voters."</li><li>The White House referred Axios to the DOJ. </li></ul><p><strong>President Trump</strong> told <a href="https://x.com/atrupar/status/2113691794001035377" target="_blank">reporters</a> Friday that he told the DOJ to file the suit against Alaska. </p><ul><li>He then explained the situation to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who stood beside him, and then called Daniel J. Sullivan "the fake" candidate. </li></ul><p><strong>Catch up quick: </strong>The retired teacher Sullivan will appear on the ballot as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. after the state's Supreme Court ordered the state's Division of Elections to include him in the race in June. </p><ul><li>Senator Sullivan will appear as "Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) Incumbent," per the state's sample ballots.</li><li>Sullivan has <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-other-dan-sullivan-in-alaskas-senate-race-says-candidacy-is-not-a-sham" target="_blank">argued</a> his candidacy is not a sham, and Peltola's campaign has <a href="https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/elections/2026/gop-sen-dan-sullivan-draws-an-unusual-opponent-in-alaskas-primary-and-hes-not-happy-about-it/" target="_blank">denied</a> any involvement with his run.</li></ul><p><strong>The intrigue: </strong>The race is among those being closely watched as Democrats appear to be making <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/08/23/senate-ohio-alaska-iowa-texas-kansas-mississippi-nebraska" target="_blank">inroads in red territory</a>.</p><ul><li>The administration acknowledged the tight race in its lawsuit, saying "there is a realistic chance" that the non-incumbent Sullivan's presence on the ballot could tip the scales for Peltola.</li></ul><p><strong>Flashback: </strong>In the primary, Senator Sullivan collected around 41% of the vote, versus Sullivan's 2.5%. Peltola earned 49.5%</p><ul><li>Cook Political Report currently <a href="https://www.cookpolitical.com/senate/race/488531" target="_blank">rates</a> the race as a toss-up.</li></ul><p><strong>Reality check: </strong>Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller <a href="https://apnews.com/article/alaska-senate-race-sullivan-name-lawsuit-certification-d8f4a3c7b5247cc427a05f796d7c0d82" target="_blank">tells AP</a> that the Alaska suit won't survive long, since the National Voter Registration Act — the statute cited by the DOJ in the suit — "simply doesn't let the Department of Justice enjoin certification."</p><ul><li>"The lawsuit could well be mooted by a wide Democratic victory or a narrow Republican one, and if not, the court will likely dismiss it next month," he said.</li></ul><p><strong>Go deeper: </strong><a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/09/24/nrsc-republicans-alaska-iowa-ohio" target="_blank">Scoop: NRSC pleads for $9M to defend three red seats</a></p><p><em>Editor's note: This story has been updated with a statement from the Department of Justice and President Trump. </em></p>
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration's bid to require California election officials to separate out mail ballots received from roughly 20,000 people it claims are not U.S. citizens.
A federal judge has rejected a Trump administration request to stop California from counting the ballots of up to 20,000 people, warning it would "wreak havoc" on the midterm elections
A federal judge denied a Department of Justice request to require California election officials to set aside about 20,000 ballots.
While the judge rejected the Department of Justice's unprecedented demand in California, the case isn't over yet. The federal government immediately filed notice that it will appeal.
The Trump administration’s bid to separate 20,000 mail ballots in California that it says are likely noncitizens met another defeat on Wednesday as a trial judge refused to intervene.  U.S. District Judge David Carter ruled California can continue to accept the questioned ballots like any other. “This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over…