Report Alleges Democratic Operatives Sought Spoiler Candidates in Alaska Senate Race

Democratic operatives working with Mary Peltola's US Senate campaign tried to recruit spoiler candidates to weaken Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska, according to a New York Times investigation published Wednesday. The report describes campaign aides, national Democratic officials and a consultant using a false name.

The effort was internally called the "ballot composition project." It was designed to exploit Alaska's election system by bringing in candidates who could pull votes from the incumbent, including a second candidate who is also named Dan Sullivan.

The report emerged less than a week after the Trump administration filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block certification of Alaska's Senate results if confusion between the two Sullivans affects the outcome.

According to the Times, the work began in the summer of 2025, when a Peltola campaign staffer was told to search Alaska voter records for people who share the senator's name. That search led to Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from the fishing community of Petersburg, who entered the race in May. He has said he chose to run independently.

Peltola's campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) both deny recruiting anyone. "The Alaskans for Mary campaign has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign and did not recruit any candidates into the race," the campaign told the Times. The DSCC also denied recruiting Sullivan or any other Republican candidate.

The Times identified Jerid Kurtz, an Ohio-based Democratic operative, as a central figure. Former Peltola campaign manager Elisa Rios said DSCC officials introduced Kurtz to senior campaign aides in 2025 and that he joined discussions about potential spoiler candidates. Rios, who was dismissed during an August campaign shake-up, said Peltola was not directly involved but was "definitely aware." Rios later tried to withdraw her statements, but the Times said other interviews and documents, including text messages, corroborated its reporting.

The report says Kurtz traveled around Alaska using the name "Zane" and approached possible candidates in bars, restaurants and private meetings. Matthew Salisbury of Anchorage said a man calling himself Zane repeatedly urged him to run and suggested outside political spending could help. Salisbury identified Kurtz from a photograph provided by the Times. Gerald Heikes, a Republican drywall contractor who made the November ballot, said a man from the Midwest encouraged him to run and promised outside support, though he did not name Kurtz. Federal Election Commission records show a pro-Peltola super PAC paid about $87,000 to Wingspan Strategies, a firm co-owned by Kurtz. The PAC denied hiring or paying Kurtz personally. Kurtz did not respond to requests for comment.

Text messages reviewed by the Times show senior Peltola aides and DSCC officials discussing the effort over several months. In January, Anton McParland, Peltola's former chief of staff, floated creating a new right-wing party to attract conservative voters. "Imagine if there was a MAGA party!" he wrote. Andrew Piatt, the DSCC's director of campaigns, replied: "Smart. Let's see." The idea was reportedly dropped in May.

The investigation also describes efforts to persuade Democrat David Leslie to leave the race after he advanced from the August primary. His exit let Heikes take the fourth spot on the general election ballot. The Times said Kurtz contacted Leslie before he withdrew and congratulated him afterward. Consultant Jim Lottsfeldt, who the Times said discussed backing long-shot candidates through outside spending at a dinner with campaign staff, denied knowing of any such operation and disputed Rios's account.

The incumbent appears on the ballot as Dan S. Sullivan, listed as a registered Republican, while his namesake appears as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., with no party affiliation. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in June that the second Sullivan could stay on the ballot. Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, and election law experts have questioned the federal government's legal basis for challenging certification over possible voter confusion.