Skip to comments.Alaska Supreme Court issues stay on write-in list ban(Sen. Murkowski)
Posted on 10/27/2010 9:37:36 PM PDT by Red Steel
The Alaska Supreme Court has stayed a Superior Court injunction that bars the Alaska Division of Elections from providing lists of write-in candidates to voters at polling places, after an appeal by the state and Sen. Lisa Murkowskis write-in campaign.
The stay allows the division to continue providing the lists to early voters, but requires that only names and not party affiliations be listed. It also states that ballots cast prior to the injunction remain valid, but should be tallied separately.
In the interim period prior to this courts ruling on the underlying Petition for Review, all ballots cast by voters provided with the list of registered write-in candidates shall be marked or otherwise segregated, the court wrote.
The stay requires the Division of Elections to inform the court of any reason why ballots cant be segregated by 3 p.m. Thursday.
Chief Justice Walter Carpeneti did not participate in the decision.
It isn’t complicated. If you provide a separate list of write in candidates you are providing an alternate ballot.
Can’t the scum ever play it straight, just once?
All kinds of shenanigans!!
Providing a list of write in candidates? This makes absolutely no sense.
She is putting herself back on the ballot.
This is amazing.
A write-in candidate that is now on a separate ballot with her name on the ballot?
Insanity rules the day.
Sounds like this list of write-in candidates is being provided even to voters who don’t request it. They are modifying the official ballot, or issuing an amended ballot for all practical purposes.
Why can’t they have the standard two-way race? what happens if all three get 33.3%? Will Senator Stuart Smalley come to the rescue?
I’m confused, are the state election workers handing out names inside the polling place? Or is it Murkowski supporters outside the polling place?
Damned Murkowski. R or D, an elitist member of the ruling class feels entitled to the seat, regardless of election law.
Joy Bahar should address this candidate.
If there is to be a write-in list, it should be a list of all 350,000 or so Alaskans over the age of 30.
It’s amazing how much money Sen. Murkowski has to wage write in campaign of this scale. She seems to have axcess to as much money as she has little honor.
IMO, the whole debate is one whether to *remind* voters of Murkowski as they are stepping into the voting booth as opposed to forcing the voter to remember this on their own.
In Texas, I have seen lists of write-in candidates who qualified as such by turning in petitions with enough names to be write-ins yet not enough names to be included on the official ballot. This is normally the province of fringe candidates who tend to get only a minimal number of votes.
Very astute observation. I think you have it correct with that one.
Did 350,000 Alaskans file a letter of intent with the Alaska Elections Division at least five days prior to election day?
Does that matter? Why should one candidate be able to hand out literature to voters as they go into a voting booth?
That Murkowski has no honor surprises me not at all. She is a liberal after all...
The list is not counted as a ballot.
I’m not defending this BS, but let’s keep it accurate.
This is beyond senseless, it’s pure evil. What a total sham. How on earth can one ever honestly say there is a list of “write-in” candidates? What, is there a “write-in” party? Did they participate in the primary election? Can’t I write in Fred the panhandler? Why isn’t he on the “write-in” list? Who decides which names to post on that list?
The AK Supreme Court got this 100% wrong, plain and simple. In the annals of Supreme Court rulings, this one is as bad as the SCOTUS’ ruling in the Kelo case.
Does that matter? If such a policy for getting listed at polling locations as a write-in existed prior to the election, you might have something there. However, there is no such policy, and this wrongheaded decision by the AK Supreme Court was manufactured out of thin air.
Murkowski wants this so people SPELL her name correctly. If it's misspelled, the vote doesn't count. Welcome to 1984.
I don’t think the poster is correct. If they hand these lists out and the voter still doesn’t spell Murmooski’s name right, there may eventually be a ruling that it doesn’t count if misspelled.
If Alaska has a law that allows registration of write-in candidates, and Joe Blow goes to the polls with no intent to vote for Murmooski, what is the big deal? And if Joe Blow goes to the polls with the intention to vote for Murmooski, they’re going to count it for Murmooski whether Joe Blow spells it exactly correct anyway, short of a court ruling otherwise.
The problem, as I see it, arises with the really stupid voter who wants to vote for someone other than Murmooski but thinks the hand-out list is something he’s supposed to write in to complete the ballot, and then checks another candidate’s name as well - the one he actually wants to vote for. It seems much more likely that a dumbass rat druggie or welfare type would do that than a conservative, so the rat candidate is the one most likely to suffer as I see it because if you vote for two, neither counts.
According to the article, it’s the state elections board with the authority to hand out the list, not the campaign.
If that is not correct, I’m sure someone will let me know. :)
The dem candidate tried defining the race between Miller and himself; kept attacking Lisa's back & forth record. Murkowski looked weak at moments in her responses. I think the dem candidate will hurt Lisa's chances.
Miller didn't come off as being extreme either.
I asked the wifey an NEA member (who came from a long line of dems, but has been registered Repub for over 20 years) what she thought of the debate. She agreed that Lisa looked unsure & weak at times. That Miller come across knowing of what he spoke, and straight up guy; covered his problems at the Fairbanks Borough and that the dem guy really went after Murkowski more than MIller.
Me thinks Miller will do well on Tuesday.
Maybe it is the influence of Sarah Palin on that state that they have a decent court system...
What the heck is that? There is no such thing. Talk about suppressing the vote!
I voted the other day and there were people handing out lists of recommended candidates for their party. Is this any different and how? I’m in NC and the only way I can see a difference is possibly state law differs.
If only it was misspelled on the list...
I would think that would be considered “electioneering”.
We do not allow ANY button, t shirts, brochures, matches, newspaper articles, list of candidates (Anything that has a candidate’s name or party affiliation within fifty feet of the the polls) in IN for the same reason.
We just covered this at Poll school this week. In IN there is an accepted list of names issued to the precinct by the SoS. The person must first fill then name in and THEN VOTE for that person. It is a two step procedure...Name and connect the line or fill in the dot.
If you don’t do the second step you have not voted...period.
No, it doesn't. But just look who is pushing it - Marxists in disguise.
It seems more like a blatant leading question in a court testimony.
I suggest that we bombard the internet - facebook, blogs, LTE’s, etc. - with comments and statements containing a variety of spellings for Mercowsci. Do it differently every time.
Over 200 years of elections in this country...
...and we’re still making it up as we go along.
I`m not a lawyer, but I do not see how this is good for Joe! You may have used Sarcasm that went over my head.
Seems like a terrible ruling to me! I have no idea who appointed these judges, but it seems clear to allow it at this time, they have a pretty good idea how they will eventually rule. When Joe wins they probably throw it out?
Sounds like they are in the tank for the tramp Lisa.
In future there should be a sore loser law that you only get one kick at the can.
This is a battle by the GOP for its heart and soul. Murkowski represents to them, to guys like Rove, their ticket on the gravy train of compromise and accommodation with statism and liberalism, just so long as they get their fair share of the pork.
The regulation reads, "Information regarding a write-in candidate may not be discussed, exhibited, or provided at the polling place, or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place."
To me, it's a clear cut ruling so I ask what changed in the regulation to make this court rule otherwise? Or need I even ask and just follow the money.
I thought they were banning the lists, not allowing them...
I guess I should have looked up what the legal term stay meant...
This is a bad ruling.
The only good thing is that they are keeping a separate list of the other ballots -- as they might be thrown out. I believe voters were given additional information for those ballots...
Without the lists they couldn’t SPELL Murkowski and they must write in the treacherous RINOs name EXACTLY or the ballot is tossed.
And I guess that many of these voters were highly amused at the criticism Sarah Palin got for having words written on her hand. How difficult is it to write down the correct spelling before going to the polls?
Handing out a list is electioneering, period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.