Independent Alaska Senate candidate Daniel J. Sullivan left his hometown of Petersburg, Alaska, days before the midterm election, as questions persist about his campaign and potential efforts to confuse voters. Sullivan, a retired teacher, departed Petersburg on Monday, according to multiple sources, two days before The New York Times reported he was recruited by operatives linked to Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign. Residents of Petersburg, a small town accessible only by air or sea, report a lack of visible campaigning from Sullivan, with dozens stating they have not received any campaign materials. While Sullivan maintains his candidacy is genuine, Republicans allege he is a “sham candidate” intended to draw votes from Republican Senator Dan Sullivan, who shares a nearly identical name. State and federal investigators are examining allegations that Democratic operatives aided Sullivan’s ballot access.
A former student reported seeing Sullivan on a flight to Anchorage, but his current whereabouts remain unclear. Keely Hankins, a Petersburg resident, supports Sullivan, citing his long-time community involvement and role as a teacher. However, other residents, like Darla Kowalski, express embarrassment over the situation, labeling Sullivan a “hoaxer.” Andrew Worhatch, a local fisherman, questioned the seriousness of Sullivan’s candidacy, noting the absence of a public platform. The local school district confirmed Sullivan taught music and elementary school for nearly 20 years before retiring in 2021.
Both Peltola and national Democrats have denied any connection to Sullivan's campaign. Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy has ordered a state investigation, and federal prosecutors are conducting a criminal inquiry into how Sullivan entered the race, preserving communications and preparing grand jury subpoenas. The investigation is expected to continue beyond Election Day. The core question remains whether Sullivan’s candidacy is a legitimate effort to serve as senator or an attempt to influence the outcome of the election by confusing voters.
Our reading is that the circumstances surrounding Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy are highly unusual and raise legitimate questions about his intent. The combination of his sudden departure from his hometown, lack of visible campaigning, and the allegations of external recruitment suggest a deliberate effort to complicate the election, even if the full extent of any coordination remains unclear. The investigations at both the state and federal levels confirm the seriousness with which these allegations are being treated.
Read the original coverage
💬 Comments
📜 Comment Policy