Things are so unhealthy for Republicans that they are suing to block the certification of elections that have not occurred yet.

The Department of Justice has sued to block the certification of the Senate election in Alaska, but only if Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan loses.

The lawsuit, which seems to have been dictated to the DOJ by Trump, states:

Dan S. Sullivan (“Senator Sullivan”) has represented the State of Alaska in the United States Senate since 2015. He is working for reelection as a Republican in November 2026, in what most observers believe will be a shut race against Democrat Mary Peltola.

Daniel J. Sullivan determined to run for Senator in 2026 as a Republican with the intention of deceptive supporters of Senator Sullivan into voting for him. The sole objective of his candidacy is to profit the Peltola marketing campaign by lowering the quantity of votes for Senator Sullivan.

Congress has tasked state officers with “protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process,” 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3), and the Supreme Court has lengthy acknowledged that states “ha[ve] an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies.” Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 135, 145 (1972); see also Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 442 (1971) (“There is surely an important state interest in … avoiding confusion, deception, and even frustration of the democratic process at the general election.”).

Should Alaska certify any electoral outcomes tainted by the inclusion on the poll of Daniel J. Sullivan—whose candidacy, Defendant Beecher discovered, is “for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot”1 — the State and its officers will fail in its obligation to defend the integrity of its election.

The United States accordingly brings this lawsuit to defend the integrity of the 2026 Senate election in Alaska.

What type of a crackpot would sue to block the certification of an election before the election is held, but make his lawsuit contingent on his occasion shedding?

Probably the same form of individual who would stand in entrance of reporters and take credit score for this thought.