"There's definitely an 'M' at the beginning...I see a 'cow'..."
Posted on 10/27/2010 9:37:36 PM PDT by Red Steel
ANCHORAGE, Alaska —
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 Murkowski’s 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 court’s 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 can’t be segregated by 3 p.m. Thursday.
Chief Justice Walter Carpeneti did not participate in the decision.
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 RINO’s 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.
I heard Murkowski was on Rachel Maddow’s show. That tells me what I need to know.
We'll see her again in the future; but with a D after her name. Da bitch got drunk off power.
Well let’s get someone to change their name to Lisa Murkowsky and run for Senate. They won’t know which one to choose :-)
The original trial court ruling was good for Miller. It prohibited the election clerks from handing out a sheet with Murkowski's name (and other certified write-in candidates - I understand a certified candidate is one who has registered with the division of elections). The appeal stayed the trial court ruling but directed that list have only the names and no other identifying information (ie party affliation) and that ballots cast by voters who had received the write-in sheet be segregated from the others until the issue was settled.
Two further points. Here is who made the appeal:
It appears the main reason for the challenge is to give the Natives a list they can take into the polling place. Without it, they would more than likely be voting the name of the Dem as it is on the official ballot.
Now, having said that, what the heck is the Alaska Republican Party doing with its name on a lawsuit that if successful assists the primary loser in defeating the primary winner?
Election workers were handing out the names inside the polling place. The original ruling would mean Murkowski supporters would have to provide the list (while staying 200 feet [I believe] from the polls). The appeal now allows election workers to continue to hand out the list to the voter before he/she votes.
It was already ruled that any spelling that clearly indicates her name would be allowed. The list is just a reminder to those who might want to write her in. I really think its mainly for minorities who might not be as well educated as others (i.e. the "entitlement" class).
Now, having said that, what the heck is the Alaska Republican Party doing with its name on a lawsuit that if successful assists the primary loser in defeating the primary winner?
Didn’t they join in the orginal suit before the Superior Court to halt the use of write-in candidate names in the polling place? Thus they are a respondent in the Supreme court ruling.
If Murkowski wanted to send a post card with her name on it to all of Alaska voters saying take this to the polls with you, then there would be no problem. The fact the election officials hand out the list at the polls makes it a problem.
That makes sense.
...ahhh, err...
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.