Source: Wikicommons Public Domain Image

A Note on the Alaska Lawsuit

Yes, it is electoral interference, but it is dumb electoral interference.

6

Comments

As promised in my previous post, I have some thoughts on the lawsuit over a potential Republican loss in the Alaska Senate race. The AP has the details: Trump says he ordered the Justice Department’s lawsuit over Alaska’s US Senate race.

President Donald Trump on Friday said he told his administration to file its lawsuit to block certification of the U.S. Senate race in Alaska if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, kicking off what many fear could become a lengthy battle between the government and states over certifying an election where the president’s party is struggling.

“I’m the one that said do it,” Trump told reporters as he landed for a campaign rally in Florida.

The lawsuit, filed late Thursday, centers on one of the president’s longstanding complaints in the Senate race — the presence of a second candidate named Dan Sullivan, who Republicans fear could siphon away votes from the incumbent in what’s likely to be a photo-finish contest with Democrat Mary Peltola, the state’s former congresswoman.

It seems worth noting that the issue has already been adjudicated in Alaska’s courts and the legality of the candidacy in question has been confirmed. Further, I am not even sure what standing the federal government has to sue here, not to mention that the election hasn’t happened yet.

But I 100% accept the notion that this was Trump’s idea because it’s so dumb and because I am certain he does not understand Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system.

Here’s the relevant portion of the Alaska ballot:

First, without getting into the RCV-of-it-all, there is one thing I am highly confident that voters can do when voting: identify their preferred party. As such, while there may be a handful of quasi-illiterate people who both can’t find the word “Republican” on the ballot, but still might find the wrong “Sullivan,” this strikes me as likely a negligible number.

So, okay, maybe there is a scenario in a one-round, extremely close plurality election wherein Daniel J. pulls in enough votes so that Dan S. loses to Peltola because of confusion. This strikes me as highly unlikely, but at least theoretically possible.

But that’s not what is going on here. No doubt Trump thinks this is what is possible (however unlikely), and yet…

Second, this is a ranked-choice ballot. Even if someone can’t tell the difference between the Dans, they can vote for both. I have tried to think of a scenario in which enough voter confusion would redound to Peltola’s advantage, but it is making my brain hurt. I guess if a large number of people voted for Daniel J. (while thinking they are voting for Dan S.) and did not rank anyone else, that could theoretically be enough to give Peltola the seat despite the majority actually preferring Dan S. It is a scenario that is headache-inducing, and even if that was the result, it would be impossible to prove in court that all the Daniel J. votes were really intended for Dan S.

Put more simply: not only are voters given adequate information on the ballot itself, but the electoral rules being used also make it virtually impossible for voter confusion to matter.

So, again, I totally believe that this utterly stupid lawsuit was ordered by Trump.

I would hasten to add that presidents shouldn’t be ordering such lawsuits and, as dumb as this is, it is disquieting to have the DOJ insert itself into an election before the votes are counted simply because the sitting president fears his party might lose the seat.

6 responses to “A Note on the Alaska Lawsuit”

  1. This suit will quietly disappear after the election. Unless Peltola narrowly wins and the Senate ends up 51-49 D. They’ll also offer to make Fetterman wealthy to caucus with the Rs. The period from Nov 3 to Jan 3 could get really interesting, for Chinese curse values of interesting.

    1
  2. I’m glad you included that last paragraph, because that was the first thing that jumped out at me when reading about this. None of it is surprising anymore, sadly, but imagine the howls and calls for impeachment if a democratic president was directly controlling the DOJ.

    1
  3. I suppose if someone marks both Dans as first choice, the ballot is invalid. I can see some people marking both as first “to make sure,” or some other such nonsense.

    The purpose, if any, may be that is the other Dan gets any votes, El Taco can claim he wuz rubbed (not a typo).

  4. As they did in the first election with RCV, Republicans have made the fundamental error of fielding two candidates. Heikes will presumably get some first choice votes from Republicans, especially when he’s #1 on the ballot (Australian research has found being #1 on a list confers a small but genuine advantage; we call it the “donkey vote” [nothing to do with the Democratic Party]). Informed Republican voters will know to rank the two Republicans 1 and 2, but many people are saying not all Republican voters are informed.

    1. @Ken_L Good point. It is an obvious over-nomination problem.

      But it also speaks to what a poor job Top Two and Top Four + RCV (in this case) does in motivating new parties.

  5. Charley in Cleveland Avatar
    Charley in Cleveland

    If Trump worked as hard at being president as he does at sowing doubt into the electoral process he wouldn’t automatically be the worst POTUS in history. In August of 2016, he claimed a loss to Hillary Clinton would mean the election was rigged. He hasn’t stopped hammering the theme that he cannot lose a legitimate election, but he has expanded it to all Republican candidates. More so than his blatant corruption and economy wrecking tariffs, his lasting legacy will be having made so many Americans convinced that elections are illegitimate.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.