Jessica Tarlov tried to defend the disputed Dan Sullivan ballot scheme in Alaska during an episode of “The Five,” only for Greg Gutfeld to dismantle her argument. The clash centered on a second Republican candidate sharing the incumbent senator’s name.
The confrontation followed [1] a lawsuit filed last week by the Justice Department in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The department wants to block certification of the Senate results if Sen. Dan Sullivan, an Alaska Republican, loses.
According to the lawsuit, the second Dan Sullivan entered the race as a Republican “with the intention of misleading” supporters of the incumbent. The department argued that certifying results affected by that candidate would violate the state’s duty to protect election integrity.
“Should Alaska certify any electoral results tainted by the inclusion on the ballot of Daniel J. Sullivan… the State and its officers will fail in its obligation to protect the integrity of its election,” the lawsuit says.
Tarlov portrayed the filing as evidence that Republicans were revealing their own game. “And they’re giving the game up,” she said, before arguing that voters could distinguish between the incumbent and the other candidate bearing the same name.
That defense prompted Gutfeld to suggest that the panel should “do a segment on that and how low down it was to introduce somebody of the same name.” He then mocked the idea that the candidate had simply appeared through pure coincidence.
“Oh, who did?” Gutfeld replied. “I don’t know who did. It just happened. Another Dan Sullivan showed up. How did that happen? It was just, you know, pure coincidence.”
When Tarlov continued, Gutfeld argued that defending the maneuver destroyed any principled limit on election tactics. In his telling, excusing something that dirty meant there was no longer a meaningful reason to object when comparable conduct occurred.
“I get it. But see, what you just do, what you’ve done is you’ve opened the door for everything,” he said. “Now nothing, now there’s no reason to even defend the most lowdown dirty thing when you defend that.”
The criticism went beyond the television exchange. Democrats would never tolerate Republicans placing another Mary Peltola on the ballot and would instead condemn such a move as an “attack on democracy.”
Tarlov also denied that Democrats were involved. The following morning, however, The New York Times reported that Democrat operatives aligned with Peltola had searched during the summer of 2025 for another man named Dan Sullivan who could enter the race.
NEW: Greg Gutfeld SLAMS Jessica Tarlov after she tries to justify the Alaska ballot paper featuring two Dan Sullivans
Tarlov: “They’re giving the game up. The fact that the DOJ filed to invalidate the results in Alaska if Mary Peltola wins, because people, I guess, are too stupid to know what ‘Dan Sullivan incumbent’ means versus Dan Sullivan. That’s what President Trump is saying by filing that lawsuit.”
Gutfeld: “We should do a segment on that and how low-down it was to introduce somebody of the same name.. Oh, who did? I don’t know who did. It just happened. Another Dan Sullivan showed up. How did that happen? It was just, you know, pure coincidence.”
Tarlov: “You think people will not see a Republican incumbent and think it’s the other guy?”
Gutfeld: “I get it. But see, what you’ve done is you’ve opened the door for everything. Now there’s no reason to even defend the most low-down dirty thing when you defend THAT!” adds @greggutfeld
— TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) October 27, 2026 [2]
The reported objective was straightforward: Confused voters might direct support toward the second Sullivan rather than the incumbent. The operation reportedly involved Peltola campaign aides, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee officials, campaign lawyers, and a Democrat operative who allegedly recruited candidates using the fake name “Zane.”
The effort did not stop with a shared name. Drywall contractor Gerald Heikes entered the contest and became the fourth person on the ballot, creating another possible avenue for drawing votes away from Republican candidates.
After the primary, the group reportedly helped persuade far-left Democrat David Leslie to leave the race. His departure opened a ballot position for Heikes, who could potentially siphon votes from the Republican side.
Aides also considered directing money toward the new candidates through outside spending and a new super PAC called Alaska Values. They additionally discussed starting a “MAGA party” that could further divide conservative voters, but that idea was ultimately abandoned.
Former Peltola campaign manager Elisa Rios became a significant source for The New York Times report. She later attempted to withdraw what she had said, but the newspaper published her account and stated that it matched the rest of its reporting.
Alaska’s nonpartisan primary system allowed candidates to appear under party labels without party officials first vetting them. That structure created the opening for another Dan Sullivan to run as a Republican despite the incumbent already carrying that name.
If Peltola wins by fewer votes than the combined total received by the spoiler candidates, the state could face a fierce legal battle. The Justice Department’s lawsuit has already placed the dispute over certification squarely before a federal court.
For Gutfeld, the central point was the glaring double standard. Democrats have repeatedly presented themselves as guardians of democracy, yet their media defenders were suddenly willing to wave away a reported operation designed to exploit voter confusion when political power was at stake.