Le démocrate de la Chambre de surveillance maintient son soutien à Peltola, renvoie à l'Alaska pour les prochaines étapes

Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy stated on Thursday that the state may halt or alter the certification of its United States Senate election results if the ongoing investigation into Democratic candidate Mary Peltola yields findings of illegal conduct. Speaking in an interview with NewsNation, the Republican governor refused to give an unequivocal commitment to certify the outcome if Peltola wins the seat held by incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. Dunleavy said authorities would investigate the matter and follow the law, noting that any discovery of wrongdoing could impact whether a candidate is seated in the Senate. He emphasized that officials needed more information before deciding whether to proceed with standard certification procedures, stating the goal was to ensure a "scam" was not sent to Washington. The controversy centers on a report published Wednesday by The New York Times alleging that aides to Peltola’s campaign and outside Democratic operatives recruited a retired teacher named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. to run against the incumbent. The objective, according to the report, was to create confusion among voters by placing a second candidate with the same name as the Republican senator on the ballot. This tactic, often referred to as ballot stacking, aims to split the vote or obscure voter intent in Alaska’s unique nonpartisan, top-four voting system. Peltola, a former congresswoman, has firmly denied any involvement in the alleged scheme. Her campaign issued a statement asserting that the "Alaskans for Mary" campaign had no connection to either Sullivan candidacy. At a campaign stop in Soldotna, Peltola dismissed the reports as a distraction, stating her focus remained on healthcare affordability and legislative priorities. In response to the New York Times report, Dunleavy ordered the Alaska Department of Public Safety to investigate whether the recruitment effort violated state laws. He noted that the Alaska Division of Elections had already conducted a preliminary probe. The governor directed the safety department to determine if criminal charges or civil action were warranted, arguing that deliberately tricking voters strikes at the integrity of elections. Dunleavy expressed frustration regarding the presence of the second Sullivan on the ballot, suggesting the Alaska Supreme Court might have reached a different conclusion had it possessed the current information about the recruitment efforts. The state supreme court had ruled in late June that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. could remain on the ballot despite challenges from the Republican Party. Legal experts have questioned the validity of the legal threats surrounding the incident. Scott Kendall, an Alaska lawyer and former Republican operative, stated that recruiting a candidate with the same name as an opponent is not illegal under Alaska law. He argued that while the act may be viewed negatively, it does not provide a legal basis for the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking to delay certification if the incumbent loses. Kendall noted that the Alaska Supreme Court has the authority to interpret state law and had already upheld the second candidate’s placement on the ballot. Despite these legal opinions, the political pressure on the governor continues to mount. The federal government has become heavily involved in the dispute. President Donald Trump accused Democrats and Peltola’s campaign of fraud and perjury on social media platforms. He claimed the Democrats created fake candidates and lied to courts regarding their knowledge of the second Sullivan. Trump stated that Peltola should be removed from the ballot and that those involved should face prosecution. Separately, the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Representative James Comer of Kentucky, launched an investigation into the allegations. Comer scheduled hearings for November 5 and 6, summoning Peltola’s former campaign manager, Elisa Rios, and Democratic operative Jerid Kurtz, whom The New York Times identified as participants in the recruitment effort. Representative Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, defended Peltola while acknowledging the need for state-level investigation. He criticized the Republican administration for questioning the fairness of the election process and urged Alaskan authorities to handle the matter locally. Garcia noted that individuals allegedly involved in the recruitment have since been fired by the Peltola campaign and predicted that voters would easily distinguish between the two candidates on election day. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also distanced itself from the incident, with a spokesperson stating the organization was not involved with Daniel J. Sullivan. The timing of the dispute adds complexity to the transition of power. Dunleavy’s term as governor expires on December 7, shortly after the target date for certifying election results. Recent polling indicates that Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins leads in the race to succeed Dunleavy. This raises the possibility that any legal disputes regarding certification could extend beyond the current administration and into the tenure of a potential new governor. The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit seeking to delay the certification of results if Senator Dan Sullivan loses the election, further complicating the path for the eventual winner. The Senate race in Alaska is widely regarded as one of the closest contests in the upcoming midterms. Voters will choose from four candidates who advanced through the nonpartisan primary earlier in the year. The ballot lists the incumbent as a Republican and includes Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. without a party affiliation. While the ballot design attempts to clarify identities, the allegation that the second candidate was strategically placed to dilute support for the incumbent has fueled intense partisan debate. Both sides continue to exchange statements accusing the other of undermining democratic processes, with the final determination resting on the outcomes of the state and federal investigations currently underway.