Last Friday I mentioned what I called the “stupid, childish, and deceptive” tactic of “ballot stacking,” which is when a campaign recruits another candidate to run for the same office because that person’s name is confusingly similar to the opponent’s. See “Assorted Stupidity #176” (Oct. 30, 2026). As you likely know, there were two “Dan Sullivans” running for the open Senate seat in Alaska, and some cynics accused the Democrats of arranging this merely because the first Dan Sullivan was a Republican. But did that turn out to be true?
Huh? Was it true? Of course it was true. Was it not clear that was a rhetorical question. Who else would have bothered to do that? I mean, why are you even reading this paragraph? Come on, man.
As I mentioned last week, this is by no means the first time a ballot has been stacked. This is why the tactic has a name. I couldn’t find any earlier references to it on this website (the guy who changed his name to “Andy Griffith” when running for sheriff was as close as I got), but a reader helpfully pointed me to this article comparing the Alaska controversy to a similar one in Washington state just two short years ago. That one seems equally stupid, childish, and deceptive, but arguably is 50% funnier because it involved three similar names, not just two.
In Washington’s 2024 gubernatorial election, three-term state AG Bob Ferguson was the clear front-runner in the Democratic primary. This meant he was likely to be the next governor, since Washington hasn’t elected a GOP governor since 1980. But, according to the Washington State Standard, the primary “quickly got weird” when Glen Morgan, a Republican, recruited two more “Bob Fergusons” to run as well. It appears Morgan first compiled a list of everyone in the state named “Bob Ferguson” (there were 53 at the time), and then started calling them until he found two who didn’t like the AG. He raised money to pay their $2,000 filing fees, and presto, there were three “Bob Fergusons” running for the Democratic nomination.
Predictably, Democrats were outraged (then) at this stupid, childish, and deceptive tactic. “It’s nothing less than an attack on our democracy,” declared former governor Christine Gregoire, although it was, in fact, something less than that. (As a reminder, this is what that looks like.) Bob Ferguson at first declined to comment, but his campaign later sent cease-and-desist letters to the new Bob Fergusons, telling them to quit, and threatening prosecution if they didn’t.
This wasn’t an entirely idle threat, because in Washington, ballot-stacking could be a felony. See Rev. Code Wash. § 29A.84.320 (making it a class B felony to file a declaration of candidacy using a “duplicate, nonexistent, [or] untrue name”). But I’m not sure the statute would have been violated. Only one of the four subsections might apply, but that one requires proving a candidate acted “with intent to confuse and mislead the electors by capitalizing on the public reputation of the candidate who had previously filed.” (Emphasis added.) Of course, the point of ballot stacking is to “confuse and mislead the electors,” but the phrase “capitalizing on” seems to suggest the defendant must have been trying to win, not just cause someone else to lose. And I think the language would have to be construed narrowly because (1) it’s a criminal statute and (2) there are First Amendment implications.
As it turned out, the additional Bob Fergusons dropped out of the race before the ballots were printed, so this ended up becoming moot. (Bob Ferguson won, by the way.) Thankfully, though, the dispute lasted long enough to generate “various nicknames,” according to the report, including “Three Bob Night” and “The Three Bobby Problem.” (The report actually says “the Three Bob Problem,” but that joke doesn’t work so I’m going to assume the report got it wrong. But congratulations to whoever came up with “The Three Bobby Problem,” especially if it was me.)
Predictably, last week’s report quotes former ballot-stacker Glen Morgan as saying there’s a “clear contrast” between his effort and the Democratic one in Alaska. “Obviously the Democrats think it is just fine in Alaska,” Morgan said, “but how dare anyone file for office with the same name in Washington state?” This of course is the “both sides” defense, which rarely if ever makes a lick of sense. Look, the thing you’re talking about is either bad or it isn’t. It doesn’t get less bad, nor do you, just because someone you don’t like did that same thing. It just means you both suck. He did have a slightly better argument, though, in that (according to Morgan) no campaign was part of his conspiracy, contrary to what’s being alleged now in Alaska. On the other hand, his conspiracy was arguably illegal under state law; Alaska doesn’t have a similar statute.
The First Amendment applies in both states, of course, which explains the ultimate resolution in Alaska. The state supreme court held that the deceptive Dan Sullivan couldn’t be kicked off the ballot because there were less restrictive means to address the problem—namely making sure the ballot clearly distinguishes between the similarly named candidates. (See image above.) So the solution to ballot stacking, you see, is to trust in the intelligence of the voters.
Oh dear.
Yes. The Alaska vote count proceeds very slowly, I assume because the ballots often have to be pried from the jaws of marauding polar bears or Yetis. As of this writing (Nov. 5), only 74% of the vote has been counted—but as it stands, enough people have voted for the obviously non-Republican and non-incumbent Dan Sullivan that it could make the difference in the race. Mary Peltola leads by just 563 votes out of about 105,000 counted, far fewer than the 3,600 votes cast for Second Sullivan.
As far as I know, no one has alleged that Gerald Heikes is not on the level, and he’s drawn off more votes. Also, under Alaska law, unless someone gets more than 50% of the votes then ranked-choice voting comes into play, so that might also make this moot. But it is possible that this could be a case in which ballot stacking might make a difference. I’m still going to blame the partisans responsible for stacking ballots in the first place, but it’d be nice if they lacked an incentive to do it because it did not work.
I mean, you walked hundreds of miles through hip-deep snow while fighting off snow weasels so you could vote, I assume. Shouldn’t you read the ballot once you get there?