Skip to comments.Counting of write-in ballots underway in Alaska Senate election ["phonetic understanding?"]
Posted on 11/11/2010 6:47:46 AM PST by SeattleBruce
Reporting from Juneau, Alaska The tedious scrutinizing of the more than 92,500 write-in ballots cast in the U.S. Senate race in Alaska got underway in a chilly warehouse Wednesday, with observers for Republican Joe Miller's campaign determined to challenge any variation in the spelling of rival Lisa Murkowski's name.
And judging from the multiple derivations voters attempted Lisa Muroski, LSI Murkswke, Lisa Mvrowski, Lesa Merkesken, Lisa M., along with at least one ballot cast for Jesus Christ there will be no shortage of opportunities for argument.
"We expect to have a recount. We expect it may go to court," Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell told reporters. "I believe the counters are doing a legitimate job of trying to determine the intent and if it's then challenged in court, the court may be the final arbiter."
"The law is pretty clear that it has to be filled in just as it is on the declaration of candidacy," said Randy DeSoto, Miller's spokesman. "Our concern is the Legislature, when they made the law, wanted to get away from all this confusion by making it very clear."
State officials have said they are relying on at least two court decisions that require them to determine what a voter's intent was. If it's apparent that a voter intended to vote for Murkowski, even if there is a minor misspelling, Division of Elections chief Gail Fenumiai said she was counting it as a valid vote.
"If I can't make a phonetic understanding of the name, I say no," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.latimes.com ...
Even after they fought like hell to have a printed list of write-in candidates??
Why have laws? It's a question I have every morning driving to work, watching drivers break traffic laws without a care in the world.
Even that criteria would eliminate half the ballots cited in the article.
I hurt my tongue trying for a "phonetic understanding" of that...
Hey, I want Joe Miller to win as much as you do, but are we ready to disenfranchise somebody who wrote-in “Lisa Murkowsky”
instead of “Lisa Murkowski?”
The next excuse for speeding, “But officer, it was my INTENT to drive the speed limit.” Hey, if it’s good enough for voting it’s good enough for other instances.
The Alaska state law is clear ... so how is it disenfranchisment to actually hold people to a standard? Also, where do you draw the line as to what is “close enough”? And what are the qualifications as to who can make that call?
Wow. Next thing you know they’ll actually be counting that one vote for Jesus Christ as an ‘intended’ vote for Murkowski.
They aren’t being disenfranchised!!!
The rules were clear. Murkowski spent millions educating voters on ths issue. They handed out wristbands with her name. They broke the rule and allowed printed write in lists available at polling sites. ANyone who couldn’t spell her name and fill in an oval has NO GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT.
But yeah, like I said last night screw it. Conservatives arguing that rule of law shouldn’t be adhered to...unbelieveable.
Why didn`t they then just say, don't worry about getting the exact spelling right, because they will only need to be shown what your intent was.
So really they could have even said....it`s not a big deal doing a write in vote, even if you just come close to the spelling, will be just fine.
She should not have been allowed to run again after being defeated, especially after saying she would not!
I agree somewhat but where do you draw the line? The law states it has to be spelled correctly.
Does Lisa M work for you? That was one of the names listed above. It all goes down to where the line should be drawn and they did have to print the write in names that had registered didn’t they?
Did you see some of the other spellings/submissions? In any case, let’s see the military votes counted, the rest of the absentee votes (from which Miller reduced his deficit by at least 2,000 to date.)
From above article:
“Miller’s deficit to the number of ballots cast as write-ins the majority presumed to be for Sen. Murkowski had shrunk to about 11,300 votes by Wednesday as absentees continue to be counted.”
“Why have laws?”
Why have primaries?
Why can’t they accept just the Lisa part???
Why is it the liberals have no problem re-inventing the law when it suits their needs.
If you remember Bush v Gore, the main problem was that the Florida Supreme Court said that the election law could be changed during the recount. The US Supreme Court blasted them 6-3 and said "NO." The 5-4 vote was for the remedy.
So what is the cvount of actual ballots now counted. Who is ahead in actual counted votes? ... I do so detest media spin.
Wait just a minute. They allow a list to be in the voting booth with the correct spelling of the write in candidates names and yet they will allow misspellings as long as the “intent” is there? What about the intent to look at the list?
And who defines “phonetic understanding “???.
What if the dot over the “i” in “Murkowski” is unclear? Is it a dot? Is it a smudge? It is, in fact, an “e?” I think you have to give a little leeway. Lisa M? No. Lisa Murkowsky? Yes.
How ‘bout just ‘Lisa’ or ‘Lizzie girl’ - should they all count? Despite the law? Hey who cares, let’s just change the rules on the fly to benefit our establishment RINO.
Come on - you know you don’t support that. Miller’s chances may be slim - but he must fight.
And voters, should they wish their vote counted - had best take care when they vote (shouldn’t that be a pre-requisite??) and learn how to spell their chosen candidates name if they wish to cast a write-in ballot.
Having DUMB voters’ votes not counted should not be my/our concern. It will teach voters to be informed and prepared when they go to vote, if their wishes are not counted because of their stupidity.
You are absolutely right. Where I live, the city/state might as well take out all yield signs (no one knows what yield means).
What is the law?
2010 General Election Absentee and Questioned Ballot Count Schedule
- Tuesday, 11/9 - Early votes from Election Day and Absentee ballots
- Friday, 11/12 - Questioned ballots
- Monday, 11/15 - Absentee and/or questioned ballots
- Tuesday, 11/16 - Absentee and/or questioned ballots
- Wednesday, 11/17 - Special Advance (overseas) ballots
2010 Unofficial General Election Results
- View the November 2, 2010 General Election Results at Division of Elections web page
Election Summary Report
State of Alaska 2010 General Election US Senate Write-In
Summary For Jurisdiction Wide, All Counters, All Races
State of Alaska 2010 General Election Unofficial Results
United States Senator Write-In
CC - Challenged Counted
CNC - Challenged NOT Counted
Registered Voters 494876 - Cards Cast 19203 3.88% Num. Report Precinct 438 - Num. Reporting 84 19.18%
US SENATOR WRITE-IN Total Number of Precincts 438 Precincts Reporting 84 19.2 % Times Counted 19203/494876 3.9 % Total Votes 19203
Lisa Murkowski 17134 89.23% Murkowski (CC) 1629 8.48% Murkowski (CNC) 276 1.44% Other - Misc. Names 143 0.74% Write-In Miller, Joe 2 0.01% Write-In McAdams 1 0.01% Write-In Carter, Tim 0 0.00%
More results/info at link.
>>>>Hey, I want Joe Miller to win as much as you do, but are we ready to disenfranchise somebody who wrote-in Lisa Murkowsky
instead of Lisa Murkowski?
If the law says spelling counts, the spelling counts. FOLLOW THE LAW AS IS ON THE BOOKS.
The truth of the law shall set you free.
“Lisa M? No. Lisa Murkowsky? Yes.”
Alaskan election law according to New Jersey’s TruthShallSetYouFree. Now, I wonder what that AK law says Truth? Shall we consult Alaskan law on the matter and let them decide based on that - or not?
Perhaps they’ll rule that the ‘i’ or the ‘y’ is the “spirit of the law.” But let THEM rule on it according to AK law, and let us not opine against the levying of that very election law.
How about, “the other guy.” Why not. That shows intent.
His next step was to declare write-in candidacy. The Kerry campaign went to court and secured a ruling that people were not technically voting for presidential candidates, they were voting for electors.
Thus, write-in votes for Nader would count only if all 21 names of his electors were listed correctly. Never mind that the ballots for Kerry and Bush did not list the names of all 21 of their electors-- only the presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
On one hand, Miller doesn't deserve to win when he can only garner a little over 34% in what is essentially a three-way race. On the other, you simply can't set aside election rules in place because it becomes inconvenient or is an unusual circumstance such as this.
Yes. But it’s not WE who are disenfranchising someone who couldn’t follow the law and spell Lisa Moo Cow Ski’s name correctly. That person disenfranchised themselves.
We have laws for a reason. Once you open the door to “voter intent,” there’s literally no end to it. “Intent” is a subjective thing. That’s why laws are passed in the first place—to create an orderly process. Law is essential to a civil society. It’s supposed to create a firm foundation so that everything doesn’t need to go to a judge.
If you believe minor misspellings should be counted, then pass a law that specifically defines the process. For example, you could write the law to allow one letter to be incorrect. That way, there would then be no question that “Lisa Murkowsky” is a valid vote. Those changes, of course, should only be applied to future elections.
Of course, legal anarchists will probably have their way with this election. It seems the thing to do. If someone doesn’t like a process, simply take it to a sympathetic judge to have it overturned. In the short term, Lisa will have her win. So what if she has to rape the civil society in the process, eh?
Moosecowsky and her father are malefactors..
The TPCaucus needs to grow further(there/here) and impact the primarys..
Federal money needs to be cut off for Alaska..
Murkowski ASKED FOR and RECEIVED permission to distribute a list of write-in candidates to voters, so that they could be sure to spell her name correctly.
So... my only conclusion would then be that anyone who still got it wrong was INTENTIONAL in not voting correctly for her.
New meaning to the phrase “close enough for government work.”
this one is clearly headed towards a 2 or 3 year court battle
Any name containing the letter, L, i, u or r. If that isn't enough, there's the whole rest of the alphabet.
“What is the law?”
The law is that the write-in name must be spelled correctly. The ‘state officials’ as it says in the article, are using a couple of court precedents to argue for ‘voter intent.’ Sounds like the AK Supreme Court may need to make a ruling - especially if the results hang in the balance.
I'd say, "no" to both of those. What about a poorly educated person who writes his "s" backwards? What if they fail to capitalize and it becomes "lisa murkowski?" Technically, that's not "spelled correctly." Look, I'm not willing to get into hanging chad territory, but, in many cases, it's impossible to read handwriting without having to make some sort of subjective decision.
Where do you draw the line? What is “close enough”? And what are the qualifications to make that call? At some point, according to your logic, someone is going to be disenfranchised when the line is drawn.
In Bush V Gore the S.C noted that the law did not define how to determine the intent of the voter and therefore it was allowable for the Florida courts to define how to do so.
Since the law has defined what is a ‘good’ vote here the courts have to use some other excuse to justify their authority.
Probably by determining the law is unconstitutional for some reason.
I assume they will say it is unreasonable to expect people to be able to spell and therefore the law unreasonably restricts the right to vote. That should have an interesting effect on contract law (though there is surely already some such rule, I doubt it is extreme enough for this instance).
“State officials have said they are relying on at least two court decisions that require them to determine what a voter’s intent was. If it’s apparent that a voter intended to vote for Murkowski, even if there is a minor misspelling, Division of Elections chief Gail Fenumiai said she was counting it as a valid vote.”
It is attonishing that the elections office would ignore a clearly stated law on the basis of some dubious court cases. It should be the opposite. The law stands unless a court has intervened. No court has intervened. If a court declares the law unconstitutional or issues an injunction, the elections office should comply. Otherwise, it should follow the existing law.
Plus one of the last minute write in candidates’ name was Lisa M. something. So if the ballot said Lisa M., which Lisa M did the voter mean?
Are we ready to disenfranchise somebody who shows up to vote on November 11th?
“So... my only conclusion would then be that anyone who still got it wrong was INTENTIONAL in not voting correctly for her.”
Love that - good work!
I think Joe should challenge Lisa to duel.
He can go over the rules after their done.....
Would you count the vote if they didn't dot the i?
Don't be silly. That vote was intended for Obama.