The government has a real reason to care about voter confusion. At the same time, voters have a right to choose among qualified candidates. A fair solution must protect both election honesty and voter choice. It should also follow laws that were in place before the election began.
Why the Government Might Be Concerned
The government has an important duty to protect fair elections. It may investigate fraud, false statements, forged documents, and efforts to trick voters. If a person changes his name just before an election, copies another candidate’s campaign materials, or falsely claims to be the officeholder, that could be evidence of a plan to mislead people.
Even when no crime has occurred, two similar names can create practical problems. A voter may recognize a name but fail to notice a middle initial or a “Jr.” at the end. A voter in a hurry might fill in the wrong oval. These risks are worth taking seriously.
The Supreme Court has said that states may create reasonable election rules to reduce voter confusion and prevent frivolous candidates from crowding a ballot. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Court recognized that states have a proper role in keeping elections fair and orderly. However, the Court also warned that election rules cannot be used to create new qualifications for serving in Congress.
That distinction matters. Preventing proven fraud is different from removing a lawful candidate simply because voters might confuse him with someone else.
The Rights of Candidates and Voters
A candidate for the United States Senate must meet the qualifications listed in the Constitution. A senator must be at least 30 years old, must have been a United States citizen for at least nine years, and must live in the state the senator represents at the time of the election.
States may also set reasonable procedures. For example, a state may require a candidate to file papers by a deadline or gather a certain number of signatures. But a state generally cannot add a new qualification such as “must be well known,” “must have a good chance of winning,” or “must not share a name with an incumbent.”
The same principle applies to the federal government. The DOJ may enforce federal laws passed by Congress, but it cannot create a new election rule on its own. If the DOJ wants a court to remove a candidate, it should identify a law that the candidate or the state has violated. It should then prove the facts required by that law.
Voters also have rights in this situation. Some may truly prefer the lesser-known candidate. Their choice should not be dismissed simply because election officials find it surprising. Democracy protects popular choices, unpopular choices, and unusual choices.
What Does the National Voter Registration Act Cover?
One possible federal law in this dispute is the National Voter Registration Act, or NVRA. Congress passed the law in 1993. It is sometimes called the “Motor Voter Act” because it made voter registration available through motor vehicle offices.
The NVRA says that one of its purposes is to protect the integrity of elections. That sounds broad. Read as a whole, however, the law mainly deals with registering voters and maintaining voter-registration lists. It covers matters such as mail registration, registration at government offices, and the removal of names from voter rolls.
The law allows the Attorney General to bring a civil case for relief needed to carry out the NVRA. But that does not mean the NVRA gives the DOJ control over every part of an election. A general statement about election integrity does not automatically create a rule about candidates with similar names.
If another federal law applies, the DOJ may rely on it. For example, federal laws prohibit certain kinds of election fraud and protect citizens from discrimination in voting. But the government must name the law, show how it applies, and prove that it was violated. A court should not remove a candidate based only on a general fear that something might go wrong.
Why Ranked-Choice Voting Matters
Alaska’s use of ranked-choice voting makes the case especially interesting. In a ranked-choice election, voters do not have to select only one candidate. They may rank candidates in order of preference.
The first round counts each voter’s first choice. If no candidate receives the required majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Ballots for that candidate then move to each voter’s next-ranked candidate. This continues until the rules produce a winner.
Suppose a voter ranks the lesser-known same-name candidate first and the well-known candidate second. If the first candidate is eliminated, the ballot transfers to the second candidate. In that situation, ranked-choice voting may reduce the harm caused by an accidental first choice.
But ranked-choice voting does not solve every possible problem. A confused voter might select the wrong person and fail to rank the intended candidate at all. Also, if the less famous candidate is not eliminated, the ballot may never transfer. Confusion is still possible.
Even so, the rankings provide useful evidence about what voters wanted. If a person ranks Candidate A first and Candidate B second, a court should normally respect that order. If a voter ranks only Candidate A, a court should not simply assume that the voter meant to choose Candidate B.
Calling one candidate “more popular” does not answer the question. Popularity could mean better polling, greater name recognition, more campaign money, more first-choice votes, or more votes in the final ranked-choice round. Under Alaska law, the winner is determined by the ranked-choice count—not by who was expected to win before Election Day.
The Danger of Changing Rules During an Election
Courts are often careful about changing election rules close to Election Day. In Purcell v. Gonzalez, the Supreme Court explained that late court orders can create voter confusion and make election administration harder. This idea is sometimes called the Purcell principle.
Timing matters even more after ballots have been printed or voting has begun. Removing a candidate at that point could affect every ranking on the ballot. Election officials might need to print new ballots, change instructions, reprogram counting systems, or decide how to handle votes already cast.
Still, the Purcell principle does not mean courts must ignore a clear violation of federal law. If strong evidence shows that a candidate committed fraud or that an election rule violates the Constitution, a court may need to act. The point is that late and disruptive relief requires a strong legal and factual reason.
A threat to contest the election only if a certain candidate loses also deserves close review. There may be practical reasons why an election result affects whether a case is ready for court. However, the basic legal rule should not depend on who wins. Conduct cannot be lawful when the favored candidate wins but suddenly unlawful when that candidate loses.
A Fair and Neutral Approach
A balanced solution would begin with evidence. Did the challenged candidate use his real legal name? Did he submit accurate filing documents? Did he falsely claim to be the other candidate? Did he copy campaign materials in a misleading way? What information appeared beside each name on the ballot? Did officials provide clear instructions?
If the candidate used his own name, met the legal requirements, and did not make false claims, removing him would be difficult to justify. Election officials could instead use less severe steps. They might print full names, middle initials, suffixes, party information, or other lawful details. They could also publish a neutral notice explaining that the candidates are different people.
The election should then be counted according to Alaska’s ranked-choice rules. Votes should not be transferred from one candidate to another merely because officials believe the second candidate is more popular. A ballot is evidence of the voter’s decision, not an invitation for the government to guess.
Election records should also be protected. Federal law generally requires officials to preserve records from federal elections for 22 months. The Attorney General may request access to covered records for an investigation. This allows the DOJ to examine evidence without automatically stopping certification of the election.
Finally, the Constitution gives the United States Senate the power to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members. That does not prevent Alaska from counting and certifying votes. It means the Senate has the final constitutional responsibility if a dispute remains over who is entitled to the seat.
Conclusion
The government should be able to stop real election fraud. But two people sharing a name is not, by itself, proof of fraud. Removing a candidate is a serious step because it affects both the candidate and every voter who wishes to support that person.
The fairest rule is one that does not depend on party, popularity, or the final result. The government should identify a real law, prove a violation with reliable evidence, and request a remedy that directly addresses the harm. Alaska should use clear ballots, count voters’ rankings as marked, preserve the records, and certify the lawful result.
That approach does not take sides between the candidates. It takes the side of a predictable legal system—one in which the same rules apply before and after the votes are counted.
Bibliography
Alaska Division of Elections. “Ranked Choice Voting FAQ.” State of Alaska. Accessed October 25, 2026.
Alaska State Legislature. “Title 15: Elections.” Alaska Statutes, including §§ 15.15.030 and 15.15.350.
Congress of the United States. “National Voter Registration Act: Findings and Purposes, 52 U.S.C. § 20501.” U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Congress of the United States. “Civil Enforcement and Private Right of Action, 52 U.S.C. § 20510.” U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Congress of the United States. “Federal Election Record Preservation, 52 U.S.C. §§ 20701–20703.” U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Superior Court for the State of Alaska. “Order on Administrative Appeal.” Sullivan v. State of Alaska, Division of Elections, No. 3AN-26-07485CI, June 26, 2026.
Supreme Court of the United States. “Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428.” 1992.
Supreme Court of the United States. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1. 2006.
Supreme Court of the United States. “Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15.” 1972.
Supreme Court of the United States. “U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779.” 1995.
United States Constitution. Article I, Sections 3–5.
Comments
No published comments yet. Start the conversation.