ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A federal judge dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit that sought to delay certification of Alaska's U.S. Senate election if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan loses and votes for another candidate with a similar name could have changed the outcome.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason ruled Sunday that the federal government had not shown that a court could provide the remedy it requested while preserving voters' constitutional right to a secret ballot. The decision came two days before Tuesday's midterm election.

Alaska's ballot lists Republican Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan, Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola, retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and another long-shot candidate. The state uses ranked-choice voting, allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

The Justice Department had asked the court to prevent certification of a Peltola victory if assigning all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan to the incumbent would reverse the result. It also proposed an investigation into whether voters who selected the retired teacher had intended to support the senator.

Gleason found no workable plan for conducting such an inquiry without exposing individual choices. She dismissed the case because the government failed to establish redressability, a constitutional standing requirement that asks whether a court order can actually remedy the alleged injury.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 22, after Alaskans had already begun voting and months after the Alaska Supreme Court directed the state to place Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot. The Justice Department said the similar names could mislead voters and undermine election integrity.

President Donald Trump has said he personally directed the department to bring the case. The Senate contest could help decide control of Congress; Democrats need a net gain of at least four seats to take the chamber.

The dispute intensified after The New York Times reported that people associated with Peltola's campaign had worked with an outside Democratic consultant who helped recruit the second Sullivan. Peltola has denied involvement in an effort to confuse voters and said she is not interested in tricking them.

Daniel J. Sullivan has denied running for the purpose of creating confusion, although he has said he would prefer Peltola to defeat the incumbent. Reuters said it had not independently verified the Times account, and the ruling did not determine whether campaign operatives acted improperly.

Alaska's Republican-run government urged dismissal, calling the federal demand meritless and impractical. State election officials said the decision allows them to administer the election while protecting ballot secrecy.

The Justice Department said it intends to appeal and characterized the dismissal as procedural. The American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, which intervened in support of the state, said the requested remedy would have disrupted an election already underway.

Sen. Sullivan said Sunday that he would accept the result whether he wins or loses. That commitment is important because the litigation concerned a hypothetical outcome before the votes had been counted.

Election integrity cannot begin by interrogating voters

The government has a legitimate responsibility to investigate fraud, illegal coordination and deliberate attempts to deceive voters. Similar candidate names can create confusion, and any credible evidence that a campaign secretly recruited a candidate for that purpose deserves independent review.

But the Justice Department asked for something more dangerous: a rule that would delay certification only if the president's preferred candidate lost, followed by an inquiry into what individual voters really meant. That would turn a secret ballot into a provisional expression subject to government reinterpretation.

A democracy must count the vote that was cast under lawful ballot rules. It cannot assign a different intention after the election because officials dislike the result or believe voters made a mistake. If ballot design is confusing, the remedy belongs before voting through clear names, candidate information and neutral procedures.

The timing also matters. Federal intervention after voting begins can itself damage confidence, especially when the president publicly claims ownership of the lawsuit. The Justice Department is part of the executive branch, but its enforcement power should not function as a campaign instrument for protecting the president's party.

Gleason's decision does not clear Peltola's campaign of every allegation, nor does it endorse ballot manipulation. It draws a necessary line between investigating conduct and suspending an election result before any loss exists.

Republicans and Democrats have both supported minor candidates when they believed doing so would divide an opponent's vote. The practice is cynical even when legal. States should require transparent candidate disclosures and punish proven fraud consistently rather than inventing a special remedy for one politically important race.

American elections remain credible when rules are established in advance, ballots stay secret and losing candidates concede after lawful counting and review. Alaska can investigate genuine wrongdoing without placing every voter's intent on trial. The court was right to reject a remedy that would have protected one candidate by weakening those principles.