The Alaska Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Alaska Division of Elections to include Dan J. Sullivan of Petersburg on the primary ballot as a candidate for U.S. Senate.

The ruling upholding a lower court’s decision came just hours after oral arguments in a fast-tracked case ahead of the division’s deadline to certify and print primary election ballots at noon on Tuesday.

A full opinion on the case will be issued at a later date, the court said. 

The decision ends a weekslong saga between the state and the challenger with the same name Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. The two Sullivans are among 16 primary candidates for the seat, including former Democratic U.S House Rep. Mary Peltola. 

The primary election is Aug. 18. The general election in November determines who will hold the seat for a six-year term.

On Friday, an Anchorage Superior Court ruled that the division’s decision to strike Sullivan from the ballot was unlawful. The judge determined that the division did not have the authority to add additional requirements for candidates beyond what is outlined in the U.S. Constitution. He ruled Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, is eligible to run for U.S. Senate.

The state appealed that ruling, and the case went before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday. 

Reached by phone Monday afternoon, Sullivan of Petersburg expressed relief. “I’m glad it’s over. It was pretty stressful. I’ve got to admit that,” he said.

On the criticisms and questions about his campaign, Sullivan said they were “challenging” to hear. 

“It’s all because of my name, and you know, there’s nothing I can do about my name,” he said. “I was frustrated, I felt it’s time for a change, and so I wanted to jump into the race and make my feelings and my thoughts known. So there’s not a whole lot more to it than that. They tried to make it more than that, and you know, that’s their prerogative.”

Sullivan said he would agree to be listed as “Dan J. Sullivan” on the ballot. He said he now plans to regroup and make plans to visit Alaskan communities, hear from voters, and continue the campaign for Senate. 

Nate Adams, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan, said they were disappointed in the court ruling but encouraged by the fact that the division director can “use her expertise” to distinguish the candidates on the ballot in an emailed statement on Monday. 

In the decision, the justices wrote the division will determine how the candidates will appear on the ballot. 

“This matter is remanded for the Division of Elections to determine, in the first instance, how appellee Sullivan shall be listed as a candidate within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law,” they wrote. 

An official with the Alaska Department of Law on behalf of the division did not immediately respond to a question about how the two candidates would appear on the ballot. 

“The State appreciates the court’s quick ruling and will work to implement the order,” said Sam Curtis with the Department of Law. 

Alaska Supreme Court hears oral arguments 

Sullivan from Petersburg appealed the division’s unprecedented June 15 decision to disqualify him from the U.S. Senate ballot. The Alaska Division of Elections cited complaints filed by the incumbent and Republican groups that his similar name, Republican party affiliation and campaign materials were evidence he was running in “bad faith” and mimicking the Republican incumbent, U.S. Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.  

Challenger Dan. J. Sullivan has defended his campaign as authentic and genuine. In court, his attorney argued that he met all the constitutional requirements for candidacy, and the division had unlawfully added a subjective criteria. 

In oral arguments before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday, attorney Chris Murray argued on behalf of the division and its appeal of the lower court’s decision. He argued that the authority to administer the manner of elections includes disqualifying the challenger, as they deemed his intention in filing was to “frustrate the purpose” of the election and confuse voters.

Justices questioned that authority cited by the state. “A lot of the times people run for office for different reasons, to highlight an issue, to see what the process is like, and maybe start garnering support over time,” said Justice Aimee Oravec. “These are not necessarily candidates that are seeking office so much as attention for other reasons that are not necessarily bad faith, and there’s no limiting principle.”

“It seems amorphous, frankly,” said Justice Jennifer Henderson. “A broad, amorphous concept of what a candidate’s intent needs to be. So it seems like it’s very appropriate for us to worry about what is encompassed by that.”

Murray argued that the division has the authority, under current state regulations, and a duty to protect voters from confusion. “Because again, what’s the division trying to do? Protect the right to vote,” he said. “The division’s job is to make sure that people who want to vote for one candidate actually get to vote for that candidate, and their intent is reflected on the ballot.”

Justice Oravec questioned that position when the division has the authority to administer and design the ballot in a way that reduces confusion. 

“You control the ballot,” she said. “So I think you’re conflating the potential for confusion when you have the authority to mitigate the confusion.”

State statute already prescribes how candidates with identical names should appear on the ballot. Candidate’s middle initials would be included — in this case “Dan J. Sullivan” for the candidate from Petersburg, and “Dan S. Sullivan” for the incumbent senator. 

But in the state’s appeal filed over the weekend, Alaska Acting Attorney General Cori Mills requested that if the court upholds the ruling restoring the Petersburg Sullivan to the ballot, then the division could list him as “nonpartisan” instead of Republican like the incumbent senator.

Justices questioned whether that affiliation would be within the division’s authority. Jeffrey Robinson, arguing on behalf of Sullivan on Monday, objected to that listing. “There’s no authority for the proposition that in order to avoid confusion the director can change the party affiliation,” he said.

Robinson argued that the division adding unwritten, subjective criteria for candidates is unlawful. He again cited the case where the Alaska Democratic Party sought to remove Eric Hafner, a U.S. House candidate imprisoned out of state, and the division did not investigate his motives but found he met the qualifications to run for office.

“When would there be a better time to question the motives of someone’s intent to run for office than a convicted felon living out of state who has no potential to come back, or virtually no potential to come back and serve?” Robinson said. 

The division has argued that there was no complaint filed against Hafner’s candidacy, and so no reason to investigate him.

Justice Oravec asked Robinson whether Sullivan and his legal team also dispute the division’s findings in their decision to disqualify him from the ballot. Robinson said the division’s points were “unconstitutional and frivolous” and they did not have the authority to make those findings. 

In an unusual move, 14 Republican controlled states filed an amicus brief, or “friends of the court” brief, with the state Supreme Court expressing support for the division and its authority to remove Sullivan from the ballot.