"By Any Means Necessary": Candidate Struck from Alaska Ballot Over Alleged Democratic Dirty Trick
The article centers on his disqualification after the elections director concluded his ballot name was intended to confuse voters.

SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThis is a personal blog post with no identified byline in the article metadata, rather than a newsroom report with evident institutional reporting and correction practices. The article cites an election official’s letter but offers little independent sourcing or response from those it accuses.
- Source type — Personal blog; institutional editorial processes are not evident.
- Source transparency — An election official’s conclusion is quoted, but opposing parties’ responses are absent.
- Author attribution — No author is identified in the article metadata.
- Editorial standards — No clear standards or corrections information is presented here.
The article reports a specific election official’s decision and quotes the stated basis for it, but its broader allegations are presented without responses from the accused parties or substantial independent corroboration. The strongly opinionated language also blurs the distinction between the official’s finding and the author’s claims.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The article provides the election director’s stated reasoning but does not include a response from the disqualified candidate, Peltola or Democratic organizations. Its allegations and conclusions are presented in a strongly one-sided manner.
- Counterarguments presented — No response from the candidate or the named Democratic figures and organizations is included.
- Loaded language — Repeatedly labels the alleged conduct a dirty trick and describes Democrats in condemnatory terms.
- Source diversity — The reporting chiefly presents the election director’s conclusion and the author’s characterization.
The article uses strongly condemnatory language about Democrats and presents an alleged partisan scheme as its central framing. It gives no comparable account of the accused parties’ perspective.
- Language tone — Uses terms such as “dirty trick,” “disgraceful” and “anti-democratic” to characterize Democrats.
- Framing — Frames the ballot disqualification as evidence of Democratic electoral misconduct.
- Source selection — Relies on the election director’s findings and the author’s assertions without responses from the accused parties.
Alaska’s elections director disqualified Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher running for Senate under the same ballot name as incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. The director said the candidacy was intended to confuse voters; the article alleges ties to Democratic operatives but does not establish Mary Peltola’s personal involvement.
The article says Alaska Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualified Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher who had launched a Senate campaign. Beecher concluded that his requested ballot name, registration history and campaign website indicated an intent to confuse voters and compromise ballot fairness. The article says he was connected to a Democratic consultant who had supported Mary Peltola.
The author characterizes the candidacy as a Democratic dirty trick and says it could have affected the Alaska Senate race under ranked-choice voting. The article raises, but does not answer, questions about Peltola’s, the DNC’s and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee’s roles. It also cites historical allegations involving Kennedy’s first congressional race and a 2000 race involving Richard Gephardt.
Community verdict
7 VOTESPeople in this story
SWIPE →Retired teacher and Senate candidate disqualified from Alaska’s ballot
Kennedy’s father, alleged to have supported a candidate with a confusingly similar name
Democratic Senate candidate discussed as a potential beneficiary of the alleged ballot confusion
Part of a bigger story
35 OUTLETSAlaska’s elections director ruled Dan J. Sullivan, a same-name Republican challenger to Sen. Dan Sullivan, ineligible for the August Senate primary ballot, finding his candidacy was intended to confuse voters. Left-leaning outlets center the ruling and its stated voter-confusion rationale. Center outlets report the official’s finding alongside the challenger’s denial, appeal options and concerns about ballot access. Right-leaning outlets frame the ruling as a win against an alleged Democratic effort to confuse voters and help the incumbent’s opponent.
- ARTICLES
- 46
- OUTLETS
- 35
- AVG CRED
- 69
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…


