Alaska Supreme Court says a man with the same name as US Sen. Dan Sullivan can be on primary ballot

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that a man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is qualified to run for the seat and ordered elections officials to place him on the August primary ballot.

The ruling came hours after the court heard arguments and just days after state court Judge Thomas Matthews found the Division of Elections had “abused its discretion” in booting the challenger Sullivan from the ballot. The Supreme Court, in a brief ruling, affirmed Matthews’ decision to include the challenger on the ballot but sent back to the division the issue of how he should be listed as a candidate “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”

The court said a full opinion explaining its decision would be released later.

Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for the challenger Sullivan, expressed gratitude for the ruling and said he expected the division “will act in full compliance" with ballot design law in preparing the ballots. Sam Curtis, a spokesperson for the state Department of Law, said the state appreciated the quick ruling “and will work to implement the order."

Nate Adams, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan's campaign, said while disappointed by the ruling, the campaign is encouraged that Beecher “will be able to use her expertise to differentiate between the Petersburg fraud and the incumbent — Senator Dan Sullivan — to the benefit of Alaska voters."

Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher issued a decision June 15 finding the challenger’s candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. But Matthews said Beecher’s decision was not based on the requirements set out by the U.S. Constitution to serve in the Senate — which address age, citizenship and residency — or on state laws or regulations.

The dust-up over the two Dan Sullivans began with the challenger filing his candidacy about a month ago, and it has roiled one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country. Alaska’s race is one of about a half dozen Senate contests across the country that are considered competitive and could determine control of the chamber for President Donald Trump’s final two years in office.

The candidate filing prompted accusations by the senator and his allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that the challenger is a sham candidate intent on sowing chaos. Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees elections, responded by announcing an investigation into the challenger's candidacy.

Two complaints raising questions about his party affiliation and motives were filed by the Alaska Republican Party chair.

The senator also accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola to cause confusion. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger, who said the decision to run was “my choice.”

The top four vote-getters from the August primary, regardless of party affiliation, move on to a ranked choice general election in November.

Sullivan, 69, from the small fishing community of Petersburg, said he had been mulling a run for years and had grown frustrated with the incumbent.

Peltola is seen as the senator’s main rival in the closely watched race, which features more than a dozen candidates.

Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan, in filings before the state Supreme Court, said the elections division disqualified their client “because of what it thought were his reasons for running.” They called the good-faith standard applied by Beecher “legally unsupportable.”

Matthews agreed in his decision Friday to allow Sullivan on the ballot, saying, the elections division determination “was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good-faith’ criteria.”

Beecher, in disqualifying the challenger Sullivan, said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and in conjunction with his candidacy changed his party affiliation to Republican, an affiliation he did not previously had. She cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of coordination.

Attorneys general from 14 Republican-led states submitted a brief supporting the division and asking the state Supreme Court to keep the challenger Sullivan off the ballot.

The division initially certified both Sullivans as candidates, identifying the challenger as Dan J. Sullivan and the incumbent as Dan S. Sullivan.

Attorneys representing the state, in their filings, said using a middle initial on the ballot would not be enough to help voters distinguish between the two Sullivans. They asked the court to uphold Beecher’s finding.

But if the court ordered the challenger Sullivan on the ballot, they proposed he be listed as Daniel James Sullivan Jr. with a nonpartisan party affiliation — arguing the division believed it could deny him being labeled a Republican since he had no prior affiliation with that party before running. The attorneys, led by outside counsel Christopher Murray, proposed in their brief that the senator be listed as Dan Sullivan, registered Republican and incumbent.

Attorneys for the challenger said any proposal to list their client as “nonpartisan” would be unlawful because Alaska law allows him to be listed according to his party preference. It proposed he be listed on the ballot as Dan J. Sullivan, a Republican.

They said the senator could ensure his supporters are aware of his middle initial and that the state’s candidate information pamphlet, which is sent to voters, also could help address any confusion.

At least one outside group supporting the senator has been running ads and sending political mailers referring to him as Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.

Dan Sullivan, who has filed to run for U.S. Senate in Alaska, poses for a photo Friday, June 26, 2026, in Petersburg, Alaska. (AP Photo/Katie Holmlund)

Dan Sullivan, who has filed to run for U.S. Senate in Alaska, poses for a photo Friday, June 26, 2026, in Petersburg, Alaska. (AP Photo/Katie Holmlund)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The San Francisco Catholic Archdiocese has agreed to pay $395 million to settle more than 500 lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse by church officials, plaintiffs' attorneys said Monday.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone will have to write an apology letter to each survivor as part of the settlement.

The settlement also requires the archdiocese to implement a series of child protection and transparency reforms, including creating a list of clergy accused of abuse, said Jeff Anderson, an attorney representing dozens of child sexual abuse victims.

The settlement comes three years after the archdiocese filed for bankruptcy and will cover approximately 530 survivors of child sexual abuse, Anderson said. It is the latest agreement over clergy sexual abuse claims. In 2024, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to a record $880 million settlement.

Several archdioceses in California filed for bankruptcy after facing hundreds of lawsuits brought under a California law approved in 2019 that allowed decades-old claims to be filed by Dec. 31, 2022.

Cordileone, the archbishop, said in a statement that he believes the settlement provides “a path toward fair compensation for survivors who have borne the weight of this abuse for a lifetime.”

“The hope is that this proposal will allow us collectively to move forward,” he said.

“We accept full responsibility for what happened, and I sincerely apologize to all those who have been harmed,” Cordileone added.

Margie O’Driscoll sued the archdiocese alleging she was sexually abused almost 50 years ago by a priest while she was a student at Marin Catholic High School in Kentfield, a community north of the Golden Gate Bridge. She said the settlement was hard-fought and puts the responsibility on church officials, not survivors.

“I, like every survivor, have carried this pain and shame along like a ball and chain for a very, very long time,” O'Driscoll said during a news conference. “Ashamed and confused about what happened, scorned by the archdiocese, and sometimes not even believed by family and friends, and I think today shame is gonna change sides.”

The San Francisco Archdiocese serves about 440,000 Catholics in the counties of San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo.

Anderson said a committee of survivors who spent thousands of hours over the last three years negotiating with Cordileone is empowered with establishing protocols on how to distribute the funds. He said every survivor will be given an opportunity to submit their story of abuse to an allocator hired by the committee to receive what Anderson said would be “an equitable distribution based on the unique circumstances of that survival.”

Besides the funds, the archdiocese will be required to follow 14 child protection and transparency demands that include maintaining and making public a comprehensive, up-to-date list of all accused clergy that details allegations and the outcomes of investigations. The archdiocese will also be banned from imposing confidentiality agreements that silence survivors.

“I’ve been working with survivors for decades and I’ve never heard of anything quite as significant, as rigorous, as robust as what is being required of the Archdiocese of San Francisco," Anderson said.

FILE - Parishioners attend a service at St. Mary's Cathedral, the mother church of the archdiocese in San Francisco, on April 2, 2010. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File)