ACLU says the ruling shows DOJ's requested relief would be illegal
American Civil Liberties UnionCivil liberties organization representing intervenors in the case, in a statement by Ari Savitzky, senior staff attorney with its Voting Rights Project
The ACLU says the ruling shows that blocking election results in advance and investigating the sincerity of voters' choices would be illegal.
“The court's get-out-and-don't-come-back ruling makes clear that preemptively blocking election results and running an inquisition into the sincerity of voters' choices would be flatly illegal. Every American should be alarmed that their own Justice Department tried to put voters on trial for how they might vote.”
Official statement
Where this statement fits
DOJ challenges Alaska Senate certification over two Sullivans; Murkowski objects
DOJ sued Alaska over the presence of two candidates named Dan Sullivan on the Senate ballot. It seeks to prevent certification under specified conditions involving an incumbent loss and the possible effect of namesake votes. Lisa Murkowski and Mary Peltola criticize the intervention.
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
The ACLU, the ACLU of Alaska, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, whose Alaska members intervened in the case, issue statements after the dismissal.
Before the quotation
Savitzky opens the statement by calling the suit a desperate attempt to disenfranchise Alaska voters and its dismissal a win for democracy.
After the quotation
He adds that this should never happen in the country and that voters should go to the polls with their heads held high. The release also carries statements from the ACLU of Alaska, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The case concerns DOJ's requested conditional restraint on certification of Alaska's Senate election. The ACLU, which represents intervenors who asked for dismissal, calls the requested relief illegal and says DOJ tried to put voters on trial.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- United States Department of Justice
More from this case
Read the full caseSullivan says he will accept the election results
“No, I'm going to accept the election results.”Read statement
DSCC's Barber calls the ruling a victory for democracy
“Today's ruling is a victory for democracy and a clear message to Donald Trump and Senate Republicans: No one, no matter how powerful, can toss out free and fair elections just because they don't like the result.”Read statement
Peltola's campaign calls the lawsuit baseless after the dismissal
“No sham investigation or baseless lawsuit from a weaponized Department of Justice is going to stop Alaskans from electing Mary on November 3rd so she can lower costs for Alaska's working families”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- ACLU says the ruling shows DOJ's requested relief would be illegal
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7751-the-aclu-says-the-ruling-shows-that-blocking
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "ACLU says the ruling shows DOJ's requested relief would be illegal". First published: 2026-11-02. Last updated: 2026-11-02. https://disputeindex.com/events/7751-the-aclu-says-the-ruling-shows-that-blocking