After Election Day, all eyes in the political world could turn to Alaska. Alaska has already been at the center of a roiling political controversy this week over how the second Dan Sullivan ended up on the state’s Senate ballot, which has sparked lawsuits, criminal investigations and threats to block certification of the election if incumbent GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan is defeated by Democrat Mary Peltola. But the uproar about the Alaska Senate race could ratchet up to 11 if control of the Senate comes down to who wins in the state, one that election officials and experts say is unlike any other when it comes to voting.

That’s because it might take two weeks before a winner can be determined. “Alaska does it different than everyone,” said Derek Tisler, counsel with the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program. “It’s such a unique state given its geography, given how remote it is and how expansive it is. So voters in all other 49 states are going to be a little confused about how things are done in Alaska when paying attention for the first time.”

There are several reasons why Alaska’s vote count could take longer than other states.

For one, the state gives between 10 to 15 days for mailed ballots to be returned to the elections office (10 days if mailed within the US and 15 days from overseas). Secondly, the state uses a system called ranked choice voting to count votes, a process where the results won’t be finalized until after that 15-day period if no candidate receives 50% of the vote on the first ballot. Should that occur, election officials and experts say it’s important for voters to remember that the process is supposed to take that long — especially because the waiting period can allow close elections to become a hotbed for misinformation over claims of cheating.

“If it does take these two weeks to find out the actual composition [of the results], this isn’t a ballot manipulation — it’s not an attempt to alter the results of the election,” said Russell Luke, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

“It’s simply how long it takes in Alaska. This is to be expected — it’s not extraordinary or outside the norm.”

Controversy swirled this week after The New York Times reported new details about Democratic involvement in getting Daniel J. Sullivan onto the Alaska Senate ballot, with the same name as the incumbent. Alaska GOP Gov. Mike Dunleavy launched an investigation into whether Democrats sought to confuse voters, and he said Thursday that if the probe finds “wrongdoing,” then certification of the Senate race results could be “stopped or changed.”

“We’re going to investigate,” Dunleavy, who launched a probe into the matter, told NewsNation. “We find out there’s wrongdoing and if that means that the certification then is stopped or changed, then that’s what happens.”

Election law experts say there is a path for Republicans to contest the results of the election through the courts, but that the governor’s certification of legitimate election results is not the way to do so.

“If any state authority — whether it’s a canvassing board or secretary of state or governor — wants to interfere with the rights of the voters by delaying or denying certification, the same thing will happen what’s happened in the past: Parties with standing are going to go to the court,” said David Becker, a former DOJ attorney and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “They’re going to get immediate relief.”

Derek Muller, an elections law professor at Notre Dame, said there’s a statute in Alaska law for a defeated candidate to contest an election in the event of misconduct, fraud or corruption to change the result of the election or “any corrupt practice as defined by law sufficient to change the results of the election.”That standard would likely be a high bar for a defeated candidate to meet with the courts, Muller said, while also noting that it was a different process entirely than the governor trying not to certify the election.

If the governor refuses certification, Muller said, “the court can order somebody else to do it.”The Trump administration has also threatened to block certification if Sullivan loses, with a preemptive lawsuit that was filed even before this week’s developments.

The Justice Department is leaning into the Times’ reporting about Democrats’ involvement in recruiting Daniel J. Sullivan to run, arguing it will confuse voters, though the lawsuit is seen as a longshot likely to fail.

The state Supreme Court previously ruled ahead of the primary that the non-incumbent Sullivan could be on the ballot.

The judge in the case is considering requests from Alaska election officials, Democrats and outside groups to dismiss the lawsuit, and a ruling could come as soon as this weekend. There is also speculation about whether some Senate Republicans might try to prevent Peltola from being sworn in should her victory be certified by the state and she show up January 3 when the new session of Congress convenes. Such a dramatic move has never happened before.

President Donald Trump has been vocally complaining about the Alaska race, something that could spur like-minded senators to try to act.

But there is no evidence at this point it might happen. Senate GOP aides refused to address the possibility that there might be an objection to or effort to block Peltola’s swearing in should she win the Alaska Senate race — or even say if there is a procedural mechanism they could use to block her.

Senate practices dictate that when a state certifies an election, the senator-elect provides that certification to the Secretary of the Senate for review. That person is then sworn in, typically by the vice president, with the other members who won their races.

If a challenge is made to the accuracy of the election results, the matter is referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration for investigation. The committee’s eventual findings and recommendations would then go back to the full Senate, which could expel the individual on a majority vote should they find there was wrongdoing or an inaccurate count in the election. This was last an issue when Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, was first elected in 1996.

She was sworn in even as her opponent alleged voter fraud. A lengthy Senate investigation cleared her. A more recent controversial race decision played out in the courts: In 2008, Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, had a 215-vote lead after the initial vote count in Minnesota. A recount gave a 312-vote lead to Democrat Al Franken. Months of legal wrangling followed.

It wasn’t until June 2009 that the Minnesota Supreme Court declared Franken the winner.

Alaska has long been one of the slowest states for reporting election results. It’s a simple matter of geography: The state is massive, with residents in far-flung areas where ballots have to be flown in to be counted because communities aren’t on the state’s roadway network. “This was common in Alaska to wait weeks on end for results in close races, even before ranked choice voting,” said David de la Fuente, deputy director for politics and research at the moderate think tank Third Way.

“Alaska is one of the few states in the country that a substantial part of their population does not get to their job via personal vehicle.”

That remoteness is why the state gives mail ballot deadlines of 10 and 15 days after the election, so long as they are postmarked by Election Day.

The US Supreme Court took up a case this year that could have ended that practice, requiring all ballots to arrive by Election Day, but the court ruled against a Republican challenge to the practice of accepting ballots arriving after Election Day in Mississippi. Luke, the University of Alaska professor, said that while vote counting in Alaska has always been slow, ranked choice voting “certainly exacerbates the issue,” because the state waits for the 15-day deadline to run out before running the ranked choice voting tabulation, which is required if no candidate receives 50% of the votes. Here’s how the process works: The votes of the fourth-place finisher are distributed among the top three vote getters, based on how voters rank the four candidates on the ballot. Then the votes of the third-place finisher are distributed to the top two vote-getters, which will put a candidate above the 50% threshold. (There is one other Republican, Gerald Heikes, on the ballot along with the two Sullivans and Peltola.)“In this particular Senate race, that is the likeliest outcome — that neither candidate clearly receives a majority in the first round,” Luke said. The same process could also play out in the state’s gubernatorial and House contests.

Ranked choice voting has been criticized by Republicans, including the president, who has questioned whether Peltola should be seated if she wins.

While some experts have argued that ranked choice voting actually protects the incumbent Sullivan — because voters can rank both Sullivans — the controversy could fuel efforts to end the use of ranked choice voting in Alaska.

In 2024, voters narrowly approved keeping the practice in a referendum. But it’s back on the ballot again in the state, meaning Alaska voters will be using ranked choice voting in the Sullivan-Peltola contest while deciding whether to keep the method for future elections.