Letters to the Editor

Election Integrity and the Fight to Maintain Political Power

Political parties are putting their desire to maintain power ahead of the public’s confidence in our elections. Recent events in Alaska and Nevada raise important questions that deserve honest answers.

Alaska’s Two Dan Sullivans

In Alaska’s 2026 U.S. Senate race, incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan is seeking reelection. Another candidate, Dan Sullivan, has also entered the race and is backed by left-wing foundations, who backed Democrat candidates in the past.

Having two candidates with nearly identical names on the ballot raises legitimate concerns about voter confusion, particularly in a state that uses ranked-choice voting in its general elections. Alaska election officials initially concluded that the second candidate’s filing appeared intended to confuse voters. However, a liberal judge later ordered that candidate to be restored to the ballot. Questions have also been raised about campaign connections, and the second candidacy is politically motivated as donors to the second Dan Sullivan are Democrat Socialists and will do anything to keep power.

These circumstances deserve careful scrutiny. If a candidate enters a race primarily to confuse voters or split support for another candidate, that would undermine public confidence in the election process. But allegations of coordination with Democratic interests have been raised.

The news media also has a responsibility to report the entire story, including the evidence, the legal rulings, Americans deserve more than selective reporting that portrays one political figure as a threat while leaving out facts, as the news media claims President Trump will stop the results if the Republican does not win, as the second Sullivan was placed there to confuse voters.

Nevada’s Question 3 and Ranked-Choice Voting

Here in Nevada, voters faced Question 3, a proposal to establish open primaries and ranked-choice voting.

Campaign signs urging voters to vote “Yes” for Question 3, were statewide. How many voters understood what they were being asked to approve? A sign can tell someone how to vote without explaining the consequences of that vote. This is a sneaky way to gain votes, by not telling the truth about a ballot issue.

Ranked-choice voting is confusing and makes elections harder for voters to understand.

Voters should have clear, accessible explanations of ballot measures before casting their ballots. They should understand the proposed changes, how votes are counted, and how the changes might affect future elections.

Nevada voters rejected ranked choice voting in November 2024, after previously approving it in 2022. Regardless of where people stand on ranked-choice voting, this debate demonstrates why informed voting matters.

Nevada’s Voter Registration Records

Another issue concerns Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and the federal government’s request to access to the state’s voter registration database.

Aguilar says he is protecting our privacy and personal information. The federal government argued that it needed access to the records for the election. Would the federal government do something illegal with the information, which Nevada could do the same. I don’t think so. Aguilar is protecting illegals, and others who should be off the voter rolls.

Nevada officials should make every effort to ensure that voter registration lists are accurate and that only eligible citizens vote in our elections and requiring proof of citizenship. Registration lists should be regularly reviewed for errors, duplicate registrations, and records that may need updating when voters move or die. This has been stopped in the past due to Aguilar’s lawsuits.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability

These examples raise a broader concern about political power and public trust. When voters suspect that election rules, campaign tactics, or government decisions are being used to benefit one party over another, confidence in the democratic process suffers.

I believe every political party should be held to the same standards. Whether the issue involves candidate names, ballot measures, campaign advertising, or voter registration records, the public deserves transparency, accurate information, and fair treatment.

No party should be above scrutiny. No public official should be exempt from reasonable questions. And no voter should have to guess what a ballot measure means or wonder whether the election process is being administered fairly.

Our elections belong to the American people, not to political parties. Protecting them requires honest reporting, informed voters, accurate registration records, and accountability from everyone involved.

Arnold Breitenbach