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?
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.
I misunderstood this ruling. I guess I should have investigated/read more closely...