ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska's already unusual U.S. Senate race has become even more complicated after a former Anchorage mayor named Dan Sullivan publicly endorsed another Dan Sullivan — the incumbent Republican senator — over a third candidate with the same name.
The extraordinary situation involves three men named Dan Sullivan who have become connected to one of the country's most closely watched Senate contests. Former Anchorage Mayor Dan A. Sullivan recently urged Alaska voters to support Sen. Dan S. Sullivan rather than retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan, whose candidacy has generated accusations that he could confuse voters.
The unusual endorsement adds another layer to a dispute that has already involved ballot challenges, court battles and a federal investigation into whether the similarly named candidate was deliberately recruited to affect the election.
Three Dan Sullivans, one Senate race
The central figure is Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, who is seeking a third term in the Senate.
His most unusual challenger is Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher who entered the race as a Republican despite having little previous connection to the party. Because the two candidates have nearly identical names, the senator's campaign and Republican allies argued that voters could mistakenly select the wrong candidate.
The third Sullivan is Dan A. Sullivan, the former mayor of Anchorage.
That former mayor is not running for Senate, but his involvement has suddenly made the name issue even more confusing.
“As the OG Dan Sullivan,” the former mayor said in a social-media endorsement, he wanted Alaskans to vote for Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.
The endorsement was seemingly intended to clarify the situation. Instead, it highlighted just how unusual the race has become.
The dispute started months ago
The controversy surrounding Dan J. Sullivan is not new.
Alaska's Division of Elections initially disqualified him from the Republican primary ballot after determining that his campaign appeared designed to confuse or mislead voters. Officials questioned the timing of his candidacy and his recent change in party affiliation.
Dan J. Sullivan challenged the decision in court, arguing that Alaska election law does not allow officials to remove a candidate simply because they question his political motivations.
A judge subsequently ruled that he could remain on the ballot, and the Alaska Supreme Court later upheld his eligibility.
That decision ensured that Alaska voters would encounter two nearly identical names in the Senate contest.
Senator Sullivan accused his rival of a political scheme
Sen. Sullivan has repeatedly alleged that his namesake is not a genuine competitor but rather a “confusion candidate” intended to siphon votes away from him.
The senator has pointed to the challenger's limited history with the Republican Party and his connections to Democratic-aligned political figures as evidence supporting that theory.
Sullivan has described the alleged effort as an attempt to manipulate Alaska's election system and said the ultimate goal would be helping his Democratic opponent, former Rep. Mary Peltola.
Dan J. Sullivan has rejected those accusations.
He has maintained that he is a legitimate Republican candidate and that his decision to run reflects his own dissatisfaction with the incumbent senator.
There has been no court finding establishing that he entered the race as part of a Democratic scheme.
Federal investigators enter the picture
The controversy escalated further this month when the Department of Justice reportedly issued grand jury subpoenas as part of an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Dan J. Sullivan's candidacy.
Reuters reported that the subpoenas are connected to questions about whether the candidate entered the race with the intention of confusing voters. The investigation does not mean that criminal charges have been filed or that investigators have concluded wrongdoing occurred.
That distinction is important.
The allegations remain allegations, and Dan J. Sullivan has denied that he is participating in an effort to manipulate the election.
Nevertheless, the federal investigation adds another level of scrutiny to a contest that was already unusual by American electoral standards.
Alaska's voting system makes the issue more significant
The identical names would be unusual under any electoral system, but Alaska's election rules make the situation particularly consequential.
Alaska uses a top-four open primary, meaning candidates compete without traditional party-specific primary elections and the four highest vote-getters advance to the general election.
The November election then uses ranked-choice voting.
That means a same-name candidate does not necessarily need to defeat the incumbent to influence the outcome. If both Sullivans advance, voters could encounter both names again on the November ballot.
Republicans have argued that this creates an opportunity for voter confusion that could affect the eventual ranking of candidates.
Both Sullivans survived the primary
The concern became reality after Alaska's Aug. 18 primary.
Sen. Dan S. Sullivan advanced to the general election along with Peltola and two additional candidates. Dan J. Sullivan also survived the primary, meaning the two Sullivans will remain on the ballot for the November contest.
That outcome guarantees that the unusual name dispute will continue into the general election.
The senator finished well ahead of his same-name challenger, but Dan J. Sullivan still secured a place among the four candidates advancing.
That makes the November ballot particularly unusual: voters will have to distinguish between candidates whose names differ primarily through middle initials or suffixes.
Mary Peltola adds another major dimension
The Senate contest is not simply a battle between two Sullivans.
Former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola is also advancing and represents the Democratic Party's strongest opportunity to capture the seat.
Peltola has previously demonstrated an ability to win statewide in Alaska, defeating former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin in the 2022 special House election and subsequently winning a full term.
Her presence makes the Senate race particularly important for both parties because Alaska is not typically viewed as a Democratic stronghold.
The Republican Party therefore has a major incentive to keep the incumbent in a strong position heading into November.
Why the former mayor's endorsement matters
Former Mayor Dan A. Sullivan's intervention is unusual because it gives voters yet another version of the same name to distinguish.
His endorsement was clearly directed at the incumbent senator, but the wording underscored the bizarre nature of the contest.
The former mayor essentially had to identify himself as the “original” Dan Sullivan to differentiate himself from the other two men.
Rather than resolving the confusion, the endorsement became another reminder of how difficult the ballot situation could be for voters unfamiliar with the candidates.
A potentially decisive Senate race
The Alaska contest is receiving national attention because control of the Senate could be decided by a relatively small number of competitive races.
The state's four-candidate general election structure means that the November contest will look very different from a conventional Republican-versus-Democrat matchup.
Peltola and Sen. Sullivan are the two most prominent candidates, but the presence of two additional candidates could influence how ranked-choice ballots ultimately transfer.
That makes every candidate potentially relevant, even if one trails the major contenders by a wide margin.
The name problem is far from over
What began as an unusual coincidence has developed into a major political controversy.
A retired teacher with the same name as the incumbent entered the race. Republican officials challenged his candidacy. Courts allowed him to remain on the ballot. Federal investigators later examined the circumstances surrounding his campaign. And now a third Dan Sullivan has entered the public discussion by endorsing the senator.
For voters, the practical challenge is simple but significant: know exactly which Dan Sullivan they are voting for.
For the incumbent, the stakes are much larger.
Sen. Sullivan must now defend his Senate seat against Peltola while simultaneously ensuring that the presence of his namesake does not create an electoral disadvantage.
The November election will determine whether Alaska's “three Dan Sullivans” saga becomes merely one of the strangest stories of the 2026 midterms — or a factor that ultimately helps determine who controls the U.S. Senate.
Also Read: US Cracks Down on Birth Tourism as Visa Revocations Rise