Inset left: Democrat Mary Peltola smiles ahead of a debate with Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska's Senate race, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2026, in Anchorage, Alaska (AP Photo/Becky Bohrer). Inset right: Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan poses ahead of a debate with Democrat Mary Peltola in Alaska's Senate race, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2026, in Anchorage, Alaska (AP Photo/Becky Bohrer). Background: President Donald Trump speaks in the East Room of the White House, July 16, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Saul Loeb/Pool via AP, File).
Democrats shrugged off the Trump administration's attempts to capitalize on news that roiled the U.S. Senate race in Alaska this week as the U.S. Department of Justice aims to enjoin the forthcoming election certification if Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan loses narrowly to Democrat Mary Peltola.
The government had argued that voters were subject to "confusion" due to a third candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan, also appearing on the ranked-choice ballot. But in an amended complaint, the DOJ now insists the Democrats themselves are responsible for the alleged confusion, relying on recent The New York Times reporting that Democrats recruited the second Sullivan.
"Although what the New York Times reports is not always true, its reporting here aligns with what the United States has been alleging on information and belief," the latest version of the lawsuit reads. "The sole purpose of his candidacy is to benefit the Peltola campaign by reducing the number of votes for Senator Sullivan."
Now, in a 33-page motion to dismiss filed Thursday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Peltola's principal campaign committee insist nothing has changed legally.
"The U.S. Constitution leaves the regulation of federal elections exclusively to the States and to Congress, and DOJ has no statutory authority to bring this case," the motion to dismiss reads.
While the news alleging Democrats orchestrated the spoiler plot broke this week, the Trump administration's lawsuit against Alaska and its election officials was filed last week. The DSCC and Peltola's campaign previously asked the court overseeing the matter to dismiss the lawsuit as soon as "this week," arguing the case cannot "hang like the Sword of Damocles over the ongoing" midterms.
Democrats say the DOJ's latest filing does nothing to "defend its indefensible legal claims as it was ordered to do" by the court.
The DSCC's motion may gain traction here.
Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason, a Barack Obama appointee, ordered the DOJ to respond to Alaska's motion to dismiss — as well as the Democrats' motion to dismiss — by Oct. 29.
Instead, the government filed a notice arguing that the "pending motions to dismiss target the now 'nonexistent' original complaint."
"The filing of the amended complaint compels denial of the pending motions to dismiss as moot," the notice goes on. "None of the motions to dismiss address the United States' claim under the Supremacy Clause. Nor do they address the new allegations, as reported by the Times, providing more detail regarding the conspiracy orchestrated by the Peltola Campaign and the DSCC to mislead voters."
To hear the Democrats tell it, the DOJ's arguments in its amended complaint still miss the forest for the trees.
"In Count I of the Amended Complaint, DOJ asserts the same claim based on the same unsupportable reading of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) that DOJ asserted in its initial complaint," the motion to dismiss continues. "Remarkably, DOJ repeats this facially untenable claim even after the State, both sets of Intervenors, and legal experts across the country all pointed out its absurdity. Simply put, the NVRA has nothing to say about which candidates are listed on a State's ballot or how the candidates' names are displayed."
Striking a seasonal note, the Democrats argue that the DOJ's Supremacy Clause claim "is just Count I in a costume."
"[T]hat claim is entirely derivative of DOJ's original, baseless claim under the NVRA," the motion to dismiss goes on. "DOJ argues that Defendants' decision to allow Mr. Sullivan on the ballot 'thwarts the accomplishment and execution of federal law.'"
For both claims, the DSCC says the DOJ is relying on the "statement of purpose" section of the NVRA. Under statutory construction or interpretation, such statements are typically regarded as preamble-like, generic, or decorative language that does not have the force of law — contrasted with a statute's "operative provisions."
Here, the motion to dismiss argues the Trump administration's election-blocking efforts rely "exclusively on an out-of-context snippet" of "generalized" language from the NVRA that imposes a "duty" on states "to protect the integrity of the electoral process."
That language, the Democrats say, is simply not specific enough to cover the claims in the federal government's lawsuit.
The motion to dismiss also reiterates the constitutional gap between state power and the federal claims at issue in the litigation.
"The Amended Complaint also does nothing to address DOJ's utter lack of constitutional authority to interfere in Alaska's election in the absence of a statute authorizing it," the filing continues. "It continues to propose a sweeping and unprecedented post-election investigation into the private motives of every voter who says they cast a ballot for Daniel J. Sullivan, without identifying authority suggesting that such an investigation is legal."