The unrig-the-system candidate in Alaska tried to rig the election

One of the strangest controversies of the 2026 election cycle has been playing out in Alaska, where Democrats have been exposed for recruiting a man named Dan Sullivan — he shares a first and last name with the incumbent GOP senator — to run for that seat as another “Republican.”In the state’s unusual top-four, ranked choice voting system, the impostor Dan Sullivan is among the quartet of candidates on the ballot in that race. Many political observers simply assumed that Democrats played some role in getting the second Sullivan into the mix as a means of confusing voters, which could give a marginal edge to Democrat Mary Peltola. After all, in a very tight contest, marginal shifts could prove decisive.Peltola’s campaign and national Democrats have repeatedly denied any involvement, insisting that it was somehow an organic coincidence that a man with the same name as the sitting Republican senator wound up in this precise scenario. That may have seemed like an intelligence-insulting, credulity-straining claim, but that was their story, and they were sticking to it. Then came last week’s New York Times investigative report that formally blew the lid off of what was rather obviously a lie. (As an aside, the paper so infuriated its leftist readership by committing journalism against the Party that it has evidently felt compelled to publish an elaborate justification for its decision to cover the news).The damning article was supported by documentary evidence, including written communications, as well as information gleaned from a dozen sources with knowledge of the scheme. The upshot was that Peltolaworld and national Democrats colluded to identify and persuade an Alaska-based man named “Dan Sullivan” — any eligible Dan Sullivan would do — to seek Sen. Dan Sullivan’s (R-AK) Senate seat. The process began more than a year ago, per the New York Times (emphasis mine): “In the summer of 2025, a staffer for Mary Peltola, the Alaska Democrat who was eyeing a run for Senate, received unusual instructions from top campaign aides: Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can. The staffer complied, combing through voter records to produce a list of Dan Sullivans from across the state. This was no random request. Dan S. Sullivan is the name of the state’s Republican senator. And if the Peltola campaign or its allies could track down and persuade another Dan Sullivan to run for Senate, the confusion could cost the senator crucial votes on the state’s unusual, four-person ballot. The plan worked. This spring, a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by air and sea, announced his candidacy for Senate. His name was Dan J. Sullivan. The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. “But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory. The endeavor, which was internally called the ballot composition project, involved secret trips to far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs. It also involved the Peltola campaign’s lawyers, as well as senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.” The denials were flagrant, brazen lies all along. This dubious process, which even had an operational code name, began with Peltola campaign staffers, was boosted by the DSCC, and relied on help from Peltola campaign attorneys and a Democratic operative from the Lower 48 who traveled around Alaska under an assumed identity.Caught red-handed by the New York Times, Peltola could have confessed with some degree of contrition, or refused to comment on the story, perhaps citing “ongoing investigations” as an excuse to remain mum. Instead, she tripled down on the lie.At a campaign event in Juneau on Thursday, she said, “I just want to clear the air. I knew nothing about any other candidate on the ballot except for me and the incumbent. That is all I have ever known about. I am not interested in tricking voters.”Rep.-elect Mary Peltola (D-AK) is interviewed on Monday, Sept. 12, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades) This assertion is untrue, not merely based on common sense — a major-party candidate says she knows nothing at all about half of the four people on the ballot in her race? — but also according to the evidence compiled in the New York Times piece:“’Alaskan voters need to know,’ said Elisa Rios, Ms. Peltola’s former campaign manager and longtime aide … ‘There was a lot of speculation, and voters should get the full picture when making their decisions.’ Ms. Peltola was not directly involved in the project, Ms. Rios said, but she was ‘definitely aware.’ … The Times also obtained dozens of text messages that provided updates on the progress of the effort.“After going on the record with all of her testimony, Ms. Rios tried to retroactively retract her revelations before the story went to print. Whether she got cold feet, or someone got to her with inducements or threats, is unclear.“What is clear is that her story was corroborated by 11 other sources and a trove of text messages. The article went live. It erased any doubt about whether the ‘fake’ Dan Sullivan is indeed a Democratic plant.“He reportedly ‘hated Trump, and if it was going to help Mary, he liked Mary.’ He was also described by the reporters as ‘a longtime supporter of Ms. Peltola and other Democrats.’”Remember, this man ended up on the ballot as a Republican, another element of this fraudulent scheme. With a Justice Department investigation underway, legal experts are debating whether this was simply a deceitful, unethical political dirty trick and cover-up, or also a crime. Within the latter realm, this information seems potentially problematic: “In one early meeting, she said, aides with the D.S.C.C. introduced a veteran Democratic operative named Jerid Kurtz to Ms. Rios and Anton McParland, who at the time was Ms. Peltola’s chief of staff. Mr. Kurtz, a native of Ohio, was introduced as a specialist in secret ballot maneuvers, Ms. Rios said. Months later, in early 2026, Mr. Kurtz participated in a video call with members of the ballot composition team, Ms. Rios said. He told the group he had made contact with one of the Dan Sullivans. This Mr. Sullivan lived in the tiny village of Petersburg, and Mr. Kurtz described him as amenable to running if it would help Ms. Peltola, Ms. Rios said. Mr. Kurtz ‘told us when he found him,’ she said. … According to Federal Election Commission records, a pro-Peltola super PAC called 49th State PAC paid Wingspan Strategies, a firm co-owned by Mr. Kurtz, about $87,000 this fall. The PAC said in a statement this week it had ‘never hired or paid Jerid Kurtz for performing any services.’ Mr. Kurtz did not respond to repeated requests for comment. In recent days, he removed his LinkedIn profile from public view and made his X account private. Text messages viewed by The Times show officials with the D.S.C.C. and the Peltola campaign communicating for months about the project. Mr. McParland asked for updates from ‘Jarid,’ ‘Jared’ or ‘our friend,’ and D.S.C.C. officials quickly scheduled calls, the messages showed. “Follow the money. Mr. Kurtz, meanwhile, was telling his collaborators that he used ‘pseudonyms and cover stories to keep his activities under wraps.'”This meticulously researched expose has the Democrats dead to rights. What they did is undeniable. Peltola’s continued denials are both facially implausible and directly contradicted by her own former campaign manager’s direct, on-the-record quotes.But will any of this matter to voters or impact the outcome of the race? That remains to be seen, of course, and our turbulent political age has produced a polarized and often unshockable electorate.That said, sharp political analyst Sean Trende believes this kerfuffle may actually break through, particularly because Peltola is swimming upstream in a red state and has therefore fashioned her brand as anti-political, anti-corruption, and independent-minded. She explicitly frames her campaign as a bid to “unrig” the system. Her team has now been nailed to the wall for rigging the system for her benefit, then lying about it.This ugly mess has also drawn the ire of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), an unpredictable centrist whose reputation is so significant in Alaska that she once won a statewide race as a write-in candidate. She slammed the Peltola campaign’s “pattern of lies and coverups” that fostered a “culture of deception.”What might also leave a mark is the New York Times piece describing the disdain Democratic schemers displayed for Alaskan voters: “In one exchange of text messages obtained by the New York Times, Peltola advisers seemed to make fun of voters while watching a focus group, surmising the participants would be susceptible to being tricked into voting for a ballot spoiler,” the story notes. “‘Do we have a scheme for you,’ wrote a consultant for the Peltola campaign. A pollster on the chat wrote that one voter seemed like the perfect audience ‘for our ballot strategy plan.’”I’ll leave you with this extraordinary passage from the New York Times article, featuring the machinations of the self-proclaimed “party of democracy” … and a familiar name: “The [Peltola] team’s spirits rose with the results of the Aug. 18 primary, as both Dan Sullivans advanced to the four-way general election. But there was one problem: The fourth spot on the ballot had gone to a Democrat who could siphon some votes away from Ms. Peltola that fall. That Democrat, a progressive named David Leslie, quickly faced calls from his party to withdraw. One of those callers, Mr. Leslie said in an interview, was Jerid Kurtz. Mr. Kurtz met with Mr. Leslie in person, at a cafe in Fairbanks, according to a person familiar with the exchange. Mr. Leslie soon agreed to drop out. ‘I’m really proud of the action you took today,’ Mr. Kurtz wrote to Mr. Leslie on Aug. 31, the day he dropped out, in a text message viewed by The Times. Mr. Leslie’s exit cleared the way for another Republican to take his spot on the ballot, potentially dividing the G.O.P. vote even further: Gerald Heikes. Mr. Heikes, a drywall contractor, said in an interview that he was recruited to run for Senate this spring ‘by a guy from the Midwest.’ The man, whose name Mr. Heikes did not remember, first reached him on the phone, then met with him at a deli.”CENTRIST DEMOCRAT HILLARY SCHOLTEN SAYS SHE RECEIVED ‘THREATENING LETTER’ CLAIMING TO BE FROM DSA On my national radio program on Friday, the genuine Sen. Dan Sullivan urged Alaskans to rank all three GOP candidates, starting with him, Daniel S. Sullivan, incumbent, at the top, then to decline to rank Peltola at all.There are several realistic scenarios in which Senate control will boil down to this race. Will Alaska voters reward or punish Peltola and her campaign for their contemptuous cynicism and habitual deceit?