DOJ Appeals Dismissal of Alaska Senate Certification Suit Breaking News · U.S. Elections · Alaska · DOJ · Federal Courts · Senate · Certification · DINA Analysis By DINA Democracy, Elections & Federal Courts Desk Court-record reporting, election-certification accountability and independent analysis Democracy Independent News Association (DINA) Published: 2026-10-23 Original: https://www.dinanews247.press/articles/doj-alaska-senate-certification-october-23 The Ninth Circuit opened case No. 26-7304. The notice of appeal does not stay the judgment, segregate ballots or block certification. Breaking News · U.S. Elections · Alaska · DOJ · Federal Courts · Senate · Certification · DINA Analysis BREAKING UPDATE — November 2, 2026, 6:39 a.m. ET: The Justice Department has appealed the dismissal of its Alaska Senate-certification lawsuit. The district-court docket records a November 1 notice of appeal as ECF No. 81, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has opened United States of America v. State of Alaska et al., No. 26-7304. What the filing does: The notice tells the courts that the United States is appealing the dismissal order and final judgment. It does not itself stay Judge Sharon L. Gleason's judgment, segregate ballots, block certification or authorize an investigation into voters' private intent. DINA had not located a separate emergency appellate order granting any of that relief at this update. Correction and clarification: DINA's November 1 update accurately reported that DOJ said it intended to appeal and that no filed notice had been located at that publication time. The public docket now confirms that the notice was filed November 1. This update corrects the article's current posture without changing the underlying dismissal or presenting the appeal as a ruling for DOJ. Confirmed: DOJ filed its appeal, and the Ninth Circuit assigned No. 26-7304. Not established: No appellate court has reversed Gleason, entered an injunction, ordered ballot segregation or halted Alaska certification. DINA analysis: The notice preserves DOJ's challenge but creates no operative election rule by itself; the next accountability test is whether DOJ seeks emergency relief and supplies the workable ballot protocol the district court found missing. What happens next The appeal moves the jurisdictional and remedial dispute to the Ninth Circuit. DOJ may challenge Gleason's conclusion that the requested relief could not redress the government's alleged injury while protecting ballot secrecy. Alaska and the intervenors can defend the judgment and argue that the requested federal intervention remains legally unavailable and operationally unworkable. Unless the Ninth Circuit issues separate relief, Alaska's ordinary election procedures remain governed by the district court's final judgment and state law. A notice of appeal is not an injunction, a factual finding that voters were confused or proof that any campaign or candidate committed wrongdoing. DINA analysis: The most consequential next document would be an emergency motion identifying the exact relief DOJ wants before canvass or certification. Any such request should be tested against ballot secrecy, Alaska's ranked-choice process, the absence of a voter-intent record and the Supreme Court's caution against late election-rule changes. Immediate appellate records to obtain The complete notice of appeal, Ninth Circuit docketing notice and briefing schedule. Any emergency motion for injunction pending appeal, administrative stay or expedited treatment. DOJ's proposed ballot-handling protocol and proposed appellate order, if either exists. Responses from Alaska and the intervenors, plus any Ninth Circuit order affecting canvass or certification. Sources for this update: CourtListener — district-court docket, including ECF No. 81 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/75009254/united-states-v-state-of-alaska/); CourtListener — notice-of-appeal entry (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/75009254/81/united-states-v-state-of-alaska/); Reuters — DOJ election litigation and confirmation of the Alaska appeal, November 2, 2026 (https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-justice-dept-breaks-with-tradition-intervene-midterms-2026-11-02/). BREAKING UPDATE — November 1, 2026, 3:15 p.m. ET: U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason has dismissed the Justice Department's lawsuit seeking to delay Alaska's U.S. Senate election certification and investigate ballots ranking candidate Daniel J. Sullivan. Confirmed fact: In a 20-page order filed Sunday, Gleason held that DOJ failed to establish Article III standing because the relief it sought could not redress its alleged injury. The judge found that ballots already cast had been commingled and could no longer be linked to voters, while DOJ supplied no workable plan for segregating Election Day ballots and investigating voter intent without violating ballot secrecy. The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice because a federal court lacking jurisdiction cannot reach the merits. At the same time, Gleason denied further leave to amend in this case, finding another amendment unwarranted and futile. She directed the clerk to enter final judgment and close the case. DOJ's discovery and preliminary-injunction requests were denied as moot. What the ruling does not decide: The order does not determine whether Daniel J. Sullivan entered the race to confuse voters, whether Democratic campaign actors recruited or coordinated with him, or whether any person committed a crime. The separate federal investigation described by prosecutors is not resolved by this civil dismissal. No person has been charged in connection with the alleged recruitment scheme. Appeal posture at this update: The Associated Press reported that DOJ said it would appeal. DINA had not located a filed notice at 3:15 p.m. ET; the later November 2 update above records the subsequently verified November 1 filing. Unless an appellate court enters relief, the district court's final judgment leaves Alaska free from the certification block and ballot-segregation order DOJ requested. Why the dismissal matters The ruling removes the immediate federal-court threat to Alaska's ordinary certification process two days before Election Day. Gleason concluded that preserving ballots would not solve DOJ's stated problem because Alaska law already requires federal-election ballots to be retained for 22 months, and a ballot records a choice—not the voter's private reason for making it. The court also invoked the Supreme Court's election-eve caution known as the Purcell principle. Ordering special ballot handling and a future law-enforcement inquiry into voter intent, Gleason wrote, would alter the time, place and manner of Alaska's election and could itself create confusion or discourage voting. DINA independent analysis of the ruling This section is DINA analysis, not a judicial finding. The decision draws a necessary boundary between investigating campaign conduct and treating lawful ballots as forensic evidence of mistaken intent. Investigators may examine communications, financing, disclosures and witness testimony under ordinary legal standards. Secret ballots cannot be reverse-engineered into explanations without threatening voter anonymity and the finality of legally cast choices. The strongest accountability question now moves to DOJ's decision-making. The department pursued extraordinary election-eve relief after voting was underway, yet the court found that it offered only a single conclusory sentence on how segregation could work and filed no proposed order with its preliminary-injunction memorandum. DOJ and the White House should disclose the legal review, operational planning and authorization that preceded the case, along with the factual basis for publicly announcing a criminal investigation days before voting ended. Urgent follow-up after dismissal Obtain the Ninth Circuit docketing notice, briefing schedule and any emergency motion or appellate ruling. Request DOJ's litigation-authorization memorandum, proposed ballot protocol, election-sensitivity review and communications with the White House or Sen. Sullivan's campaign, subject to lawful exemptions. Track the separate criminal investigation and identify any charged offense, target or judicially authorized process without treating investigative activity as proof of wrongdoing. Verify that Alaska's ordinary retention, canvass, ranked-choice tabulation and certification procedures proceed without an unannounced federal directive. BREAKING UPDATE — November 1, 2026, 3:37 a.m. ET: Alaska election officials have asked a federal judge to dismiss the Justice Department's amended lawsuit with prejudice, arguing in an October 31 reply that federal law does not authorize DOJ's requested intervention and that segregating ballots ranking Daniel J. Sullivan would either accomplish nothing or collide with Alaska's secret-ballot system. Confirmed fact: The filing is a reply supporting Alaska's pending motion to dismiss; it is not a court ruling. U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason has expedited consideration of the dismissal motions but has not decided them or DOJ's request for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction. Two intervenor groups also filed dismissal replies October 31. Alaska's argument, not an adjudicated finding: State lawyers contend the National Voter Registration Act governs voter registration rather than candidate eligibility, vote counting or certification. They say DOJ's new Supremacy Clause claim depends on the same disputed statutory theory and does not create an independent basis for relief. The state also says its ballot distinguishes the two Sullivan candidates in five ways and calls DOJ's prediction of outcome-changing confusion speculative. On ballot handling, the state says federal-election ballots are already retained for 22 months. It argues that physically separating ballots after voting would add no evidentiary value, while inspecting and intercepting ballots before they are commingled would threaten ballot secrecy. Because ballots do not identify voters or record their reasons, Alaska says the documents cannot establish whether a person who ranked Daniel J. Sullivan intended to rank Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. What remains unresolved: DOJ alleges a deliberately confusing candidacy and says emergency preservation, segregation and discovery are necessary to protect the federal election. Alaska disputes the legal basis, feasibility and evidentiary value of that relief. No court has found that voters were confused, that a campaign committed wrongdoing, that DOJ lacks authority or that Alaska's safeguards are legally sufficient. Why the October 31 reply matters The filing turns an abstract dispute over federal election authority into a concrete operational conflict less than three days before Election Day. DOJ is asking the court to preserve a category of ballots for an investigation; the state says preservation already occurs and that the additional segregation DOJ appears to seek cannot reveal voter intent without compromising the very anonymity that protects voters. DINA independent analysis of Alaska's reply This section is DINA analysis, not a judicial finding. Alaska's strongest factual point is that a ballot can show a ranking but not why the voter made it. That does not foreclose investigation of campaign coordination, disclosures or candidate recruitment through ordinary records and testimony. It does make ballot-based reconstruction of private voter intent a poor fit unless DOJ can present a precise, lawful procedure that preserves secrecy and treats every legally cast choice as valid unless a court finds otherwise. The immediate accountability question is procedural: DOJ has asked for extraordinary election-eve relief without publicly supplying a proposed order that explains which ballots would be segregated, when the separation would occur, who would handle them, how chain of custody would work and how voter secrecy would be protected. The court should require that operational proposal—and responses from election administrators—before considering any order that changes ballot handling. Urgent follow-up from the new filing Obtain Judge Gleason's ruling on the dismissal motions, expedited discovery and preliminary injunction; do not treat any party's filing as the court's conclusion. Request DOJ's proposed injunction language and any technical ballot-segregation protocol, including timing, custody, privacy and ranked-choice tabulation safeguards. Seek Alaska's current ballot-retention, commingling, scanner and chain-of-custody directives and identify which officials would have to implement any federal order. Track whether DOJ identifies evidence of an actually confused voter, rather than relying on candidate names and a hypothetical margin. BREAKING UPDATE — October 31, 2026, 12:39 a.m. ET: The Justice Department has expanded its intervention in Alaska's U.S. Senate election on two tracks: federal prosecutors publicly confirmed a criminal investigation, and DOJ asked the federal court handling its civil lawsuit to order expedited discovery and require election officials to preserve and segregate ballots ranking candidate Daniel J. Sullivan. Confirmed fact: Alaska U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman said at an October 30 news conference that the investigation had been underway for months and that recent reporting about Democratic operatives' involvement in recruiting Daniel J. Sullivan prompted a substantial increase in federal law-enforcement activity. Heyman said attorneys in his office were assisting and that investigators were taking steps around the country. He did not identify a suspected crime, a target or evidence establishing that any person committed an offense. Reported investigative step: The Associated Press reported early October 31 that an FBI agent visited a boat dealership in Petersburg seeking Charles Flint, who donated $500 to Daniel J. Sullivan. Flint told AP that the agent asked whether he had been misled about which Sullivan he supported. Flint said he understood whom he backed, was not confused and planned to rank Democrat Mary Peltola first and Daniel J. Sullivan second. DINA has not independently obtained an FBI record of that contact. An FBI inquiry is not a finding of wrongdoing. Allegation, not established fact: DOJ's civil filings characterize Daniel J. Sullivan as a sham candidate and accuse the Peltola campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee of helping orchestrate his candidacy to mislead voters. Peltola has denied involvement in placing candidates on the ballot and called the allegations a smear. No court has adjudicated DOJ's accusations, and Heyman expressly said prosecutors were not assuming that a crime occurred. DOJ's new court request In an October 30 filing in United States v. Alaska, DOJ asked U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason for expedited discovery from the Peltola campaign and the DSCC and for a preliminary injunction requiring preservation and segregation of ballots that rank Daniel J. Sullivan. The government argued the measures are needed to investigate possible voter confusion and prevent evidence from being lost. The request has not been granted. Alaska election officials oppose expedited consideration and say federal-election ballots are already preserved for 22 months. They also argue ballots are commingled and that separating those ranking Daniel J. Sullivan during voting would violate ballot secrecy and change election procedures. The state further argues that the ballots themselves cannot reveal why a voter selected him. Those competing filings sharpen a central factual problem in the case: preserving ballots is not the same as proving voter confusion. A ballot records a ranking, not the voter's explanation for it. The reported Flint interview supplies at least one concrete example of a Daniel J. Sullivan supporter who says his choice was deliberate, but one donor's account cannot establish what every voter intended. Why this update matters The federal government is now using both criminal-investigative resources and emergency civil litigation days before Election Day in a Senate contest that could affect control of Congress. The escalation is material even though no charge has been filed and no injunction has been entered. Publicly announcing a criminal investigation without identifying a suspected offense can influence voter perceptions before investigators or a court establish whether any law was broken. The court request also moves DOJ beyond its original conditional challenge to certification. The department now seeks immediate operational control over how a category of ballots is handled. Whether that can be done without exposing voter choices, disrupting Alaska's ranked-choice process or exceeding federal statutory authority is contested and unresolved. DINA independent analysis of the new developments This section is DINA analysis, not a judicial finding. The accountability test is symmetrical. If campaign actors secretly coordinated or financed a candidacy while concealing legally required information, investigators should establish the facts and identify the law at issue. But federal officials should not convert aggressive political strategy, candidate recruitment or partisan suspicion into an implied crime without a stated legal theory and evidence. The timing demands special scrutiny. DOJ's own filing acknowledges that the candidate dispute began months ago, yet the department sought emergency ballot segregation after voting was underway. Heyman's decision to publicly confirm the investigation four days before Election Day, while declining to identify a possible offense, creates a foreseeable risk that the announcement itself becomes an election event. Strongest new accountability angle DOJ should disclose who authorized the public announcement, what written election-year sensitivity review occurred, why officials believed confirmation of the investigation was necessary before Election Day and what limits prevent criminal process from being used to support the government's civil litigation. The department should also explain how agents selected donors or witnesses for contact and whether investigators asked neutral questions designed to test confusion rather than assume it. Urgent new records and follow-up Obtain the court's ruling on DOJ's requests for expedited discovery, preliminary relief and ballot segregation, plus any hearing transcript. Request DOJ and FBI authorization records for the October 30 public announcement, including any election-sensitivity review and contacts with Main Justice or the White House. Seek the subpoenas, interview instructions and legal-process approvals used in donor or witness contacts, with lawful redactions for protected investigative material. Request Alaska's ballot-handling plan, secrecy safeguards and technical assessment of whether the requested segregation is operationally possible. Track whether prosecutors identify a criminal statute, target or charge; until then, describe the matter as an investigation, not a proven scheme. UPDATED — October 23, 2026, 3:59 p.m. ET: President Donald Trump said Friday that he personally directed the U.S. Justice Department to file its lawsuit seeking to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate election under a vote-margin scenario that could produce a loss for Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan. “I’m the one who said do it,” Trump told reporters, according to The Associated Press. Reuters separately reported that Trump said he told DOJ to bring the case. His statement confirms presidential direction of the litigation; it does not prove the complaint's allegations or determine whether the court has authority to grant the requested relief. ORIGINAL REPORT — October 23, 2026, 1:49 p.m. ET: The U.S. Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate election if Sen. Sullivan loses under a vote-margin formula tied to ballots cast for another candidate with a nearly identical name. The 14-page complaint, filed October 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, names the state, Elections Director Carol Beecher, state election boards and the State Ballot Counting Review Board as defendants. It seeks statewide declaratory and injunctive relief before the November 3 election. Confirmed fact: DOJ alleges that candidate Daniel J. Sullivan entered the race to confuse supporters of the incumbent. The complaint asks the court to prevent certification if the incumbent loses and would have won had every vote cast for Daniel J. Sullivan instead been cast for Sen. Sullivan and then processed through Alaska's ranked-choice system. Allegation, not adjudication: Daniel J. Sullivan's alleged intent, the number of voters who may be confused and the premise that votes cast for him were intended for the incumbent have not been established by a federal court. No injunction had been entered when DINA published this report. The conditional remedy DOJ requests The complaint defines a potentially affected result through two conditions: Sen. Sullivan does not win, and he would have won if all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan had been reassigned to the incumbent before ranked-choice tabulation continued. DOJ asks the court to halt certification while officials investigate voter intent and while the court considers further procedures or relief. That request goes beyond removing a candidate before voting. It contemplates examining completed election results and deciding whether votes lawfully cast for one candidate were meant for another. The complaint does not specify a workable method for determining the private intent of individual voters while preserving ballot secrecy. DOJ relies on the National Voter Registration Act's stated purpose of protecting electoral integrity and on the attorney general's civil-enforcement authority. It also cites cases recognizing states' power to prevent fraudulent or frivolous candidacies. Whether those provisions authorize the requested post-election certification injunction is now for the federal court to decide. What happened before the federal lawsuit Alaska election officials previously concluded that Daniel J. Sullivan's filing was designed to create confusion and rejected his candidacy. A state trial court reversed that determination, and the Alaska Supreme Court summarily affirmed on June 29, allowing him to remain on the ballot. The federal complaint acknowledges that history and says the state high court had not yet issued a full opinion. The complaint reports that Mary Peltola received 49.5% of the August primary vote, Sen. Sullivan 41.4% and Daniel J. Sullivan 2.5%. Alaska uses a nonpartisan top-four primary followed by ranked-choice voting in the general election. Daniel J. Sullivan has denied trying to divert votes from the incumbent. Reuters and The Associated Press report that the general-election ballot distinguishes the candidates: the senator is identified as the Republican incumbent, while Daniel J. Sullivan appears without a party designation. Ranked-choice voting also permits a voter to rank both candidates. Why it matters Control of the U.S. Senate may turn on a small number of closely contested races. A federal order delaying or conditioning certification in Alaska could affect when the state declares a winner and could establish a consequential precedent for federal intervention in state certification processes. The filing also raises a basic democratic-accountability question: when a state court has kept a candidate on the ballot, can a federal court later infer voter confusion and suspend certification based on a hypothetical reassignment of votes? The complaint presents DOJ's proposed answer. Alaska and the other defendants have not yet had their complete response adjudicated. DINA independent analysis This section is DINA analysis, not a judicial finding. The strongest accountability concern is the proposed reconstruction of voter intent. Secret ballots record choices, not explanations. Treating every vote for Daniel J. Sullivan as a mistaken vote for the incumbent would erase the possibility that voters knowingly selected him, ranked candidates strategically or deliberately declined to support Sen. Sullivan. Trump's statement adds a separate institutional issue. The president has acknowledged ordering litigation designed to benefit an allied incumbent if that incumbent loses under the complaint's specified formula. Presidential direction does not by itself establish an unlawful motive, and the court has not ruled on the case. It does, however, make the White House's role a confirmed fact rather than an inference and heightens the need for disclosure of the legal review, decision chain and contacts that preceded the filing. The litigation therefore deserves exacting scrutiny on jurisdiction, statutory authority, evidence and remedy. Election-integrity claims should be investigated, but any response must apply neutral rules regardless of party and must not substitute executive-branch assumptions for certified voter choices. Political neutrality requires an equally important caution: the complaint's allegations should not be dismissed merely because the requested remedy benefits one party. Alaska officials themselves previously questioned Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy. The decisive issue is whether federal law authorizes DOJ's requested injunction and whether reliable evidence—not partisan inference—could support it. Strongest accountability angle DOJ and the White House should identify who requested, reviewed and approved the case; explain whether career election-law attorneys recommended the filing; disclose any contacts with Sen. Sullivan or his campaign; and state what safeguards separated the department's legal judgment from the president's political interest in the result. DOJ should also explain why it waited until after the ballot was finalized and shortly before Election Day to seek a certification remedy; identify the legal standard it proposes for determining mistaken votes; disclose who would conduct any investigation; and state how ballot secrecy, due process, statutory certification deadlines and the rights of every candidate would be protected. Urgent records and follow-up requests Obtain the assigned judge's scheduling order, Alaska's response, any intervention motions and every request for emergency relief. Request DOJ memoranda analyzing whether 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501 and 20510 authorize a post-election certification injunction based on candidate-name confusion. Request communications among DOJ, the White House, Sen. Sullivan's campaign and Alaska officials concerning the lawsuit, subject to lawful exemptions. Request the litigation-authorization memorandum, referral records, decision log and the names or offices of career and political officials who reviewed the complaint. Seek the complete Alaska Supreme Court docket and forthcoming opinion addressing Daniel J. Sullivan's ballot status. Request the proposed methodology, evidentiary safeguards and chain-of-custody procedures for any investigation of voter intent. Track whether the court requires DOJ to establish standing, ripeness and an imminent injury before Election Day. Sources Order dismissing action, United States v. State of Alaska, No. 3:26-cv-00376-SLG, filed November 1, 2026 (https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Order-granting-dismissal.pdf) Associated Press — Judge dismisses DOJ Alaska certification lawsuit; DOJ says it will appeal, November 1, 2026 (https://apnews.com/article/b35acffc8b55ef58679d9b8395760f98) Alaska election boards' reply supporting dismissal of DOJ's amended complaint, filed October 31, 2026 (https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/76-2026-10-31-Alaska-election-boards-reply-in-support-of-motion-to-dismiss.pdf) Associated Press — Alaska argues DOJ's requested ballot segregation is not possible, October 31, 2026 (https://apnews.com/article/alaska-senate-dan-sullivan-certification-5b975dc87222858f6239e9170d675698) DOJ memorandum supporting expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction, filed October 30, 2026 (https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/66-2026-10-30-Memorandum-of-points-and-authorities-in-support-of-DOJs-motion-for-expedited-discovery-and-preliminary-injunction.pdf) Alaska election officials' opposition to expedited consideration, filed October 30, 2026 (https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026-10-30-Alaska-election-boards-opposition-to-motion-for-expedited-consideration-of-motion-for-preliminary-injunction.pdf) DOJ first amended complaint, filed October 29, 2026 (https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026-10-29-DOJs-first-amended-complaint.pdf) Alaska Public Media — U.S. attorney confirms criminal investigation and increased federal activity, October 30, 2026 (https://alaskapublic.org/news/politics/elections/2026-10-30/doj-launches-law-enforcement-surge-in-alaska-to-investigate-ballot-stacking-allegations) Associated Press — FBI contacts Daniel J. Sullivan donor as inquiry widens, October 31, 2026 (https://apnews.com/article/25a71add61272c6b01897a645366b1cc) Alaska Division of Elections — certified 2026 general-election candidate list (https://www.elections.alaska.gov/candidates/?election=26genr) Complaint, United States v. State of Alaska et al., No. 3:26-cv-00376-SLG, filed October 22, 2026 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.akd.80263/gov.uscourts.akd.80263.1.0.pdf) Reuters — DOJ seeks conditional block on Alaska Senate certification, October 23, 2026 (https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-administration-sues-block-senate-race-certification-alaska-if-republican-2026-10-23/) Associated Press — Alaska Senate certification lawsuit, October 23, 2026 (https://apnews.com/article/alaska-senate-race-sullivan-name-lawsuit-certification-d8f4a3c7b5247cc427a05f796d7c0d82) Reuters — Trump says he directed DOJ to bring Alaska certification lawsuit, October 23, 2026 (https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-he-told-doj-sue-block-possible-alaska-election-democrat-senate-2026-10-23/) Associated Press — Trump says he ordered the Alaska Senate litigation, October 23, 2026 (https://apnews.com/article/dan-sullivan-alaska-trump-lawsuit-8b650aa32e24a21d229a5076845b54e2) Democracy Docket — case tracker and public filing archive (https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/alaska-u-s-senate-election-certification-challenge-doj/) Related DINA reporting DOJ Appeals Before Trial Judge Rules in California 20,000-Ballot Dispute (https://www.dinanews247.press/articles/doj-california-ballot-appeal-october-23) Judge Restricts DHS Voter Investigations in Nine States; Order Paused for Appeal (https://www.dinanews247.press/articles/dhs-voter-investigations-injunction-october-22) DOJ Election-Monitoring Plans and State Authority (https://www.dinanews247.press/articles/doj-1000-election-monitors-october-21) REPUBLICATION NOTICE Original DINA-authored text may be republished without charge under the terms at https://www.dinanews247.press/syndication#terms. Third-party material and images require separate permission. SOCIAL POST DOJ Appeals Dismissal of Alaska Senate Certification Suit The Ninth Circuit opened case No. 26-7304. The notice of appeal does not stay the judgment, segregate ballots or block certification. Breaking News · U.S. Elections · Alaska · DOJ · Federal Courts · Senate · Certification · DINA Analysis By DINA Democracy, Elections & Federal Courts Desk Court-record reporting, election-certification accountability and independent analysis Democracy Independent News Association (DINA) Read the full report and sources: https://www.dinanews247.press/articles/doj-alaska-senate-certification-october-23 #DINA #PublicAccountability