Judge Rules The Other Dan Sullivan Improperly Removed From Ballot
A judge ruled that Dan J. Sullivan may challenge the incumbent senator in the August primary.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYCredibility rates Crooks and Liars, where this article appeared. The other scores rate the article itself.
Crooks and Liars is a blog, and this page reproduces an Associated Press report while adding sharply opinionated commentary. The AP material is attributed, but the publisher’s blog format and lack of original reporting here warrant a modest score.
- Source type — Recorded as a blog, a source type with weaker institutional reporting safeguards than established newsrooms.
- Author attribution — An author is named, and the reproduced report is credited to the Associated Press.
- Editorial standards — The page adds openly judgmental commentary rather than maintaining a consistently reported-news presentation.
- Track record — This article provides no evidence of original reporting or a corrections process.
The attributed AP report identifies the judge, the state official, the ruling’s legal basis and the appeal process. The short piece offers limited context or additional sourcing, and its added commentary is strongly one-sided.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The AP report gives the ruling’s basis and notes that it can be appealed, but the page’s own commentary supports the challenger and attacks the senator and election official. It provides little argument for the disqualification decision.
- Counterarguments presented — The article notes the state official’s decision but gives little explanation of the rationale beyond the judge’s criticism.
- Loaded language — The publisher’s commentary uses disparaging and politically charged language.
- Source diversity — The factual material is a short attributed report with no quoted response from the elections division or state attorneys.
The added commentary uses strongly negative language about Sen. Dan Sullivan and disparages the state election official’s reasoning. The attributed AP report is more neutral, but the page’s framing clearly leans left.
- Language tone — The commentary calls the senator a “putrid rich guy” and describes him as gatekeeping for the 1%.
- Framing — The opening characterizes the election official’s criteria as arbitrary and apparently invented.
- Source selection — The factual report is attributed to AP, while the publisher’s added remarks reinforce one side’s view of the dispute.
Original publisher not identified
This article credits another publisher, which ChamberLight has not identified, so the scores are Crooks and Liars's own.
An Alaska judge ruled that Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher challenging Sen. Dan Sullivan, can appear on the August primary ballot, overturning a state elections official’s disqualification. The ruling may be appealed, with a deadline approaching for printing ballots.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled that Dan J. Sullivan is eligible to challenge the incumbent senator in the August primary. The judge overturned the elections division director’s decision, finding that the “good faith” criterion used to exclude the challenger was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s regulations. The ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The article says state attorneys identified Tuesday as the deadline for a final ruling before ballots are printed. It also includes commentary arguing that voters should decide whether they want the challenger and criticizing the senator.
Community verdict
VOTING CLOSED
No good or bad look here
This story reports what happened without casting Sullivan in a good or bad light, so readers don’t rate it and it doesn’t count toward Sullivan’s record.
People in this story
Senate candidate whose eligibility for the Alaska primary was restored by a judge
Part of a bigger story
33 OUTLETSOutlets agree that an Alaska judge ruled Dan J. Sullivan, a same-name Republican challenger to Sen. Dan Sullivan, can appear on the state’s primary ballot after election officials had disqualified him. Left-leaning outlets present the ruling as correcting the challenger’s removal and include criticism of the senator and election officials. Center outlets largely treat it as a ballot-eligibility dispute, laying out the ruling, the state’s appeal and competing claims about voter confusion. Right-leaning outlets also cover the eligibility ruling, but several cast the candidacy as an effort to confuse voters or aid Democrats, while others focus on the legal dispute.
- ARTICLES
- 36
- OUTLETS
- 33
- AVG CRED
- 76
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…