2026年6月29日 / 美国东部时间晚上10:11 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
这场丹·沙利文之间的较量已经拉开帷幕。
阿拉斯加州最高法院周一裁定，一名与共和党参议员丹·沙利文同名的男子可以在8月份的该州共和党参议院初选中挑战现任议员。高等法院维持了下级法院法官的裁决，为丹尼尔·J·沙利文出现在初选选票上扫清了道路，推翻了本月早些时候州官员作出的认定他无参选资格的决定，理由是他涉嫌试图迷惑选民。
阿拉斯加州最高法院指示州选举部门“在阿拉斯加州现有选票设计法律框架内”决定丹尼尔·J·沙利文在选票上的标注方式。
这场冲突发生在美国最受关注的参议院选举之一中。现任参议员沙利文正在寻求连任第三届参议员，但前民主党众议员玛丽·佩尔托拉也准备向他发起挑战，这将使这个近20年未选出民主党参议员的深红州出现一场异常激烈的竞选。
这位参议员称与其同名的竞争对手是“虚假候选人”，并指责他试图欺骗选民，帮助民主党拿下这个参议院席位。丹尼尔·J·沙利文是一名退休教师，也是来自阿拉斯加州彼得斯堡的前美国林务局雇员，他否认了这些指控，并坚称自己具备参选资格，且确实有意竞选参议员。
丹尼尔·J·沙利文与现任参议员丹·沙利文均将参加阿拉斯加州共和党参议院初选。凯伦·迪尔曼/美联社 / 汤姆·威廉姆斯/CQ罗尔呼叫/美联社图片
大约两周前，阿拉斯加州选举部门认定这位挑战者沙利文无法出现在选票上，称其提交的文件“并非出于真诚参选的实际目的，而是为了迷惑或误导选民”。
在给该候选人的一封信中，选举部门主任卡罗尔·比彻指出，丹尼尔·J·沙利文最初曾要求以“丹·沙利文”的名义出现在选票上，与现任参议员的名字格式一致。她还写道，他此前从未加入州共和党，其网站设计“似乎刻意”模仿了现任参议员的竞选网站，并且曾与一名与民主党候选人有关联的政治顾问合作。
丹尼尔·J·沙利文向州法院提起诉讼，要求推翻这一决定。上周五，托马斯·马修斯法官作出有利于他的裁决，认定这位非参议员身份的沙利文满足参选美国参议院的条件，州政府无权以“诚意”为由将他排除在外。
“法院并未轻视选举部门对选民不应被误导的担忧，”法官写道。但他补充道，“阿拉斯加州选举法赋予了选举部门解决这一问题的工具”，包括规范候选人在选票上的标注方式。
由于选票将于本周开始印刷，双方在周末提交了法庭文件，该案被快速上诉至阿拉斯加州最高法院。
阿拉斯加州选举部门请求高等法院推翻马修斯的裁决，辩称这将“导致阿拉斯加州在宪法上必须允许非诚意参选者获得选票资格”。该机构表示，在收到全国共和党参议员委员会的投诉后，他们得出了关于丹尼尔·J·沙利文的结论，该投诉“可信地指控”他试图“造成选民混淆”，并提出了一项“令人费解”的请求，要求使用与参议员相同的名字缩写出现在选票上。
如果丹尼尔·J·沙利文获准留在选票上，州政府请求阿拉斯加州最高法院允许其标注他的全名，并将其党派归属列为“无党派”，以“确保选民无需在两个几乎相同的名字之间猜测”。
阿拉斯加州共和党和多个由共和党领导的州提交了法庭之友意见书，支持州政府的立场。
与此同时，丹尼尔·J·沙利文的律师辩称，州政府“在阿拉斯加州法律中没有任何依据将沙利文先生排除在选票之外”，也无权调查他的“私人动机”。他们写道，州法律并未赋予官员因潜在混淆而将合格候选人排除在选票之外的权力。
“沙利文先生在这里所要求的只是出现在选票上，而选举部门显然有权以不造成混淆的方式进行标注，”他的律师写道。
在口头辩论结束后，高等法院于周一晚以两页的命令支持丹尼尔·J·沙利文，并表示将在晚些时候发布更详细的意见。
丹尼尔·J·沙利文的律师杰弗里·罗宾逊告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻，他的法律团队对阿拉斯加州最高法院“确认马修斯法官合理且全面的裁决，撤销选举部门非法排除沙利文先生参选资格的决定”表示“感谢”。
“我们预计选举部门将在选票印制过程中完全遵守阿拉斯加州现有的选票设计法律，”罗宾逊在一封电子邮件中说道。
参议员的竞选发言人内特·亚当斯表示：“我们对法院的裁决感到失望，因为正如虚假候选人丹·J·沙利文的律师在法律辩论中明确指出的那样，他参选的唯一目的就是欺骗选民，操纵阿拉斯加州的选举制度。”
“不过，我们感到鼓舞的是，选举部门主任将能够运用其专业知识，区分这位来自彼得斯堡的虚假候选人和现任议员——丹·沙利文参议员，这符合阿拉斯加选民的利益，”亚当斯说道。
Man with same name as Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan can appear on GOP primary ballot, state’s Supreme Court rules
June 29, 2026 / 10:11 PM EDT / CBS News
The battle of the Dan Sullivans is on.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that a man with the same name as Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan can challenge the sitting lawmaker in the state’s GOP Senate primary in August. The high court upheld a ruling from a lower court judge that cleared the way for Daniel J. Sullivan to appear on the primary ballot, reversing a decision by state officials earlier this month that he was ineligible because he was allegedly trying to confuse voters.
The state Supreme Court directed Alaska’s Division of Elections to decide how Daniel J. Sullivan should be listed on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”
The conflict is taking place in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate elections. The sitting Sen. Sullivan is running for a third term, but former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola is vying to challenge him, setting up what could be an unusually competitive race in a deep-red state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate in almost 20 years.
The senator has called his same-name competitor a “sham candidate” and accused him of trying to trick voters and help Democrats flip the seat. Daniel J. Sullivan — a retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee from Petersburg, Alaska — has denied those allegations and insisted he is both qualified and genuinely interested in running for Senate.
Daniel J. Sullivan and sitting Sen. Dan Sullivan, both of whom are running in Alaska’s GOP Senate primary. Karen Dillman via AP / Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
About two weeks ago, the Alaska Division of Elections determined that the challenger Sullivan could not appear on the ballot, arguing his paperwork “was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead.”
In a letter to the candidate, Director Carol Beecher pointed to the fact that Daniel J. Sullivan had initially requested to appear on the ballot as “Dan Sullivan,” the same name format as the senator. She also wrote that he hadn’t previously been affiliated with the state Republican Party, had a website design that “appears to be deliberate[ly]” similar to the senator’s campaign site and had worked with a political consultant with links to Democratic candidates.
Daniel J. Sullivan asked a state court to reverse the decision. On Friday, Judge Thomas Matthews ruled in his favor, finding the non-senator Sullivan met the requirements to run for U.S. Senate and the state didn’t have the authority to exclude him based on “good faith.”
“The court does not minimize the Division’s concern that voters should not be misled,” the judge wrote. But he added that “Alaska election law gives the Division tools to address that concern,” including regulating how candidates appear on the ballot.
With ballots set to be printed this week, the issue was appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court on an expedited basis, with both sides filing court papers over the weekend.
The state Division of Elections asked the high court to overturn Matthews’ ruling, arguing it would “leave Alaska constitutionally required to permit bad-faith ballot access.” The agency said it reached its conclusion about Daniel J. Sullivan after it received a complaint from the National Republican Senatorial Committee “credibly alleging” he was seeking to “cause voter confusion” and made a “bewildering” request to appear on the ballot with the senator’s middle initial.
If Daniel J. Sullivan is permitted to remain on the ballot, the state asked the Alaska Supreme Court to allow it to print his full name and list his party affiliation as “nonpartisan” to “ensure voters are not forced to guess between two nearly identical names.”
The Alaska Republican Party and several GOP-led states filed amicus briefs siding with Alaska.
Daniel J. Sullivan’s lawyers, meanwhile, argued the state “lacked any basis in Alaska law to exclude Mr. Sullivan from the ballot” and didn’t have the power to look into his “private motivations.” They wrote that state law doesn’t give officials the power to keep qualified candidates off the ballot due to potential confusion.
“[All] that Mr. Sullivan asks here is to be listed on the ballot, and the Division is obviously empowered to do so in a non-confusing manner,” his lawyers wrote.
Following oral arguments, the high court sided with Daniel J. Sullivan in a two-page order late Monday, and said it would issue a fuller opinion at a later date.
Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Daniel J. Sullivan, told CBS News his legal team is “grateful” for the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision to “affirm Judge Matthews’ well-reasoned, thorough order vacating the Division’s unlawful decision to exclude Mr. Sullivan as a candidate.”
“We expect that the Division will act in full compliance with existing Alaska ballot design law in its preparation of the ballots,” Robinson said in an email.
The senator’s campaign spokesperson, Nate Adams, said: “We’re disappointed in the court’s decision because as the sham candidate Dan J. Sullivan’s lawyers made clear in their legal arguments, the only reason he is running is to deceive voters and manipulate Alaska’s election system.”
“However, we are encouraged by the fact that the Director of the Division of Elections will be able to use her expertise to differentiate between the Petersburg fraud and the incumbent — Senator Dan Sullivan — to the benefit of Alaska voters,” Adams said.
发表回复