Staff Reports
The noise in Alaska’s Senate race just got louder. U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan’s campaign released a memo saying their numbers show he would overtake Democrat Mary Peltola once Alaska’s ranked‑choice voting (RCV) transfers are applied. In plain English: first‑choice leads aren’t final, and the Sullivan team wants voters and the press to know it — loudly and now.
Sullivan campaign memo: a 328‑vote path to victory
The new memo uses the state’s cast‑vote record to simulate the RCV rounds and concludes Senator Dan Sullivan would win 105,037 to 104,709 after lower‑ranked ballots are redistributed — a 328‑vote edge. The campaign points to specific transfer patterns from the two trailing candidates, Gerald Heikes and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., saying those voters’ second and third choices break heavily for Sullivan. The memo even labels the earlier reporting about a same‑name candidate “the biggest election cheating scandal in the history of Alaska.” That language is loud for a reason: it frames the narrative and sets up political and legal pressure months before an official outcome.
How ranked‑choice math can flip a race
Alaska’s RCV rules mean the first‑choice leader isn’t necessarily the winner. If nobody tops 50% on first preferences, the state eliminates the lowest candidates and redistributes their ballots to the voters’ next valid picks. On Election Night, Mary Peltola held a slim first‑choice edge — roughly a few hundred votes — but Sullivan’s team says the transfers change everything. They claim Heikes’ voters split about 71% to Sullivan and 29% to Peltola in their simulation. That kind of lopsided transfer can flip a razor‑thin race, which is why campaigns crunch these numbers fast and loud.
Data gaps, exhausted ballots, and the legal fog
Before anyone pops the victory champagne, remember the fine print. The Sullivan simulation used a cast‑vote record that didn’t yet include every single processed ballot and left out some rural precincts. Tens of thousands of absentee and late ballots still needed to be processed, and many ballots can “exhaust” if voters didn’t rank lower choices — shrinking the pool that decides a majority. On top of the counting questions sits the “Decoy Dan” reporting and related probes. Investigations and court filings have followed the story, and while some legal challenges have been dismissed, other inquiries remain active. In short: results can change, and the legal clouds could drag this out.
Why this matters and what to watch next
The Sullivan memo is smart politics. It does two things: it buys time and shapes public expectations. By showing a plausible RCV path, the campaign keeps supporters motivated and frames any delayed or flipped outcome as predictable rather than suspicious. Voters should watch for the official ranked‑choice tabulation by Alaska election officials, updates on missing precincts and absentee counts, and any new legal moves tied to the recruitment reporting. If you hate complexity and like clarity, RCV is maddening. If you like strategy, watch how campaigns use every data file to score political points. Either way, wait for the official count — and expect the rhetoric to stay loud until it’s over.
