According to an opinion published in the Wall Street Journal on June 30, 2026, Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., referred to as ‘Decoy Dan’ in the article, may face federal prosecution for violating civil rights laws.
‘Decoy Dan’ is a retired teacher from Petersburg, Alaska, who appears to be intentionally attempting to confuse voters to draw votes away from the incumbent U.S. Senator Dan S. Sullivan (R-Alaska) in this year’s Senate race. Democrats have set their sights on the 2026 race for Alaska’s open Senate seat, spending millions on a smear campaign against the incumbent Republican Senator. The Democrat’s champion is former U.S. Representative Mary Peltola, whose campaign has been criticized for using manipulative and deceptive rhetoric.
The filing for candidacy by Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan sparked controversy as key details— such as the challenger registering as a Republican despite previous Democrat loyalties, admitting to working with a Democrat consultant (who also works with the Peltola campaign), confusing his middle initial with the incumbent’s middle initial in communications with the Division of Elections, copying certain elements of the incumbent’s campaign, and refusing to set himself apart from the incumbent— evidence an intent to confuse voters rather than legitimately run for office.
The controversy went all the way to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled on June 29 that the Divisions of Elections could not bar Petersburg Dan from the ballot. However, the controversy may not end there. Ethics and Public Policy Center Fellow Michael Fragoso and former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (2024) Sean Cooksey co-authored an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal asserting the potential for federal prosecution of Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan for “conspiracy against rights.”
According to Fragoso and Cooksey, “The Democratic consultant’s involvement in Decoy Dan’s gambit suggests two or more people acting in concert to put a candidate on the ballot with the same name as the incumbent. If an investigation can show that they did so to deceive voters who favor Sen. Sullivan into wasting their votes, that will be exactly the kind of conspiracy the government couldn’t prove in Mr. Mackey’s case.”
Douglass Mackey had been prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department for conspiracy against rights after posting anti-Hiliary Clinton memes. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Mackey’s conviction because it was not proved at trial that anyone had actually been tricked as a result of Mr. Mackey’s tweets.
“As for the trickery itself, the proof is in the pudding,” writes Fagoso and Cooksey. “Unlike proving the negative, as in Mackey, here the desired deceptive outcome will be actual votes for Decoy Dan. The existence of such votes will be evidence of the conspiracy’s success.” After the November election, the FBI could investigate the votes cast for Petersburg Dan. If they find some voters who were confused and voted for Petersburg Dan but intended to vote for the incumbent Sullivan, the Court may convict Petersburg Dan and the others involved for conspiracy against rights.
