Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Counting of write-in ballots underway in Alaska Senate election ["phonetic understanding?"]
LA Times ^ | 11/10/2010 | Kim Murphy

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."

--snip--

"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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: ak; miller; murkowski; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last
Really? We're now down to "phonetic understanding of the name"??
1 posted on 11/11/2010 6:47:52 AM PST by SeattleBruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

Even after they fought like hell to have a printed list of write-in candidates??

Unbelievable.


2 posted on 11/11/2010 6:49:30 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
We are down to intent, when the law is very specific - spell the last name correctly.

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.

3 posted on 11/11/2010 6:50:27 AM PST by carton253 (Ask me about The Stainless Banner - a free e-zine dedicated to the armies of the Confederacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

Even that criteria would eliminate half the ballots cited in the article.


4 posted on 11/11/2010 6:51:23 AM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
LSI Murkswke

I hurt my tongue trying for a "phonetic understanding" of that...

5 posted on 11/11/2010 6:51:45 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

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?”


6 posted on 11/11/2010 6:52:06 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (If not for the double standard, liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carton253

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.


7 posted on 11/11/2010 6:53:11 AM PST by Jackson57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

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?


8 posted on 11/11/2010 6:55:32 AM PST by Jackson57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce; mvpel

Wow. Next thing you know they’ll actually be counting that one vote for Jesus Christ as an ‘intended’ vote for Murkowski.


9 posted on 11/11/2010 6:55:39 AM PST by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

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.


10 posted on 11/11/2010 6:55:59 AM PST by Soul Seeker ( I was there when we had the numbers, but didn’t have the principles.---Jim that leans conservDeMin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
and what about the bracelets?

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!

11 posted on 11/11/2010 6:55:59 AM PST by Friendofgeorge (SARAH 2012 OR BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

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?


12 posted on 11/11/2010 6:56:51 AM PST by ozarkgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

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.”


13 posted on 11/11/2010 6:57:58 AM PST by SeattleBruce (We voted - NOW we fight against vote fraud! Tea Party like it's 1773! Pray 2 Chron. 7:14!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: carton253

“Why have laws?”

Why have primaries?


14 posted on 11/11/2010 6:59:18 AM PST by eCSMaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

Why can’t they accept just the Lisa part???


15 posted on 11/11/2010 6:59:29 AM PST by OldEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Yes. The law was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. I assume they knew what they were doing when they said the name has to be spelled exactly.

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.

16 posted on 11/11/2010 7:00:02 AM PST by paul in cape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

So what is the cvount of actual ballots now counted. Who is ahead in actual counted votes? ... I do so detest media spin.


17 posted on 11/11/2010 7:00:45 AM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

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?


18 posted on 11/11/2010 7:01:18 AM PST by McGavin999 ("I was there when we had the numbers, but didn't have the principles"-Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
but are we ready to disenfranchise somebody who wrote-in “Lisa Murkowsky”

I'm ready. People died to give us the right to vote. People in other countries, to this day, dodge bullets and threats of bombs to vote. The least WE can do is learn how to spell our chosen candidate's name.

That said, I don't believe the "rule of law" will be followed, and no amount of court challenges will probably make it so.
19 posted on 11/11/2010 7:01:32 AM PST by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
“”If I can't make a phonetic understanding of the name, I say no,” she said.

And who defines “phonetic understanding “???.

20 posted on 11/11/2010 7:01:32 AM PST by HereInTheHeartland (Vote like Obama is on the ballot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jackson57

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.


21 posted on 11/11/2010 7:01:53 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (If not for the double standard, liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ozarkgirl; TruthShallSetYouFree

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.


22 posted on 11/11/2010 7:02:38 AM PST by SeattleBruce (We voted - NOW we fight against vote fraud! Tea Party like it's 1773! Pray 2 Chron. 7:14!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jackson57

You are absolutely right. Where I live, the city/state might as well take out all yield signs (no one knows what yield means).


23 posted on 11/11/2010 7:03:40 AM PST by carton253 (Ask me about The Stainless Banner - a free e-zine dedicated to the armies of the Confederacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

What is the law?


24 posted on 11/11/2010 7:05:19 AM PST by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster

Amen!


25 posted on 11/11/2010 7:05:22 AM PST by carton253 (Ask me about The Stainless Banner - a free e-zine dedicated to the armies of the Confederacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

2010 General Election Write-in Counting Instructions

2010 General Election Absentee and Questioned Ballot Count Schedule

2010 Unofficial General Election Results

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

11/10/10
17:23:51

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.


26 posted on 11/11/2010 7:05:31 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

>>>>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.


27 posted on 11/11/2010 7:06:20 AM PST by Keith in Iowa (FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

The truth of the law shall set you free.


28 posted on 11/11/2010 7:06:21 AM PST by Miss Behave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

“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.


29 posted on 11/11/2010 7:06:38 AM PST by SeattleBruce (We voted - NOW we fight against vote fraud! Tea Party like it's 1773! Pray 2 Chron. 7:14!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

How about, “the other guy.” Why not. That shows intent.


30 posted on 11/11/2010 7:07:00 AM PST by carton253 (Ask me about The Stainless Banner - a free e-zine dedicated to the armies of the Confederacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
True story from the 2004 Presidential Election in Pennsylvania. Ralph Nader's attempt to get on the ballot was torpedoed by signature disqualification technicalities raised by the Kerry campaign.

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.

31 posted on 11/11/2010 7:06:59 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

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?


32 posted on 11/11/2010 7:07:46 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Bring on 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
Alaskan native americans are in the bag for federal and state money(democrats/Rinos)..
I will not vote for another freeby for them again..

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..

33 posted on 11/11/2010 7:07:46 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

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.


34 posted on 11/11/2010 7:08:30 AM PST by Mr. K (physically unable to see typos until I click 'post')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

New meaning to the phrase “close enough for government work.”


35 posted on 11/11/2010 7:08:37 AM PST by depressed in 06 (The only thing the ZerO administration is competent at is bad ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

this one is clearly headed towards a 2 or 3 year court battle


36 posted on 11/11/2010 7:09:40 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
Really? We're now down to "phonetic understanding of the name"??

Any name containing the letter, L, i, u or r. If that isn't enough, there's the whole rest of the alphabet.

37 posted on 11/11/2010 7:09:54 AM PST by Hardraade (I want gigaton warheads now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Excellent points.


38 posted on 11/11/2010 7:10:31 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon

“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.


39 posted on 11/11/2010 7:11:30 AM PST by SeattleBruce (We voted - NOW we fight against vote fraud! Tea Party like it's 1773! Pray 2 Chron. 7:14!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
How ‘bout just ‘Lisa’ or ‘Lizzie girl’

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.

40 posted on 11/11/2010 7:12:17 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (If not for the double standard, liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

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.


41 posted on 11/11/2010 7:12:58 AM PST by Jackson57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: paul in cape

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).


42 posted on 11/11/2010 7:13:46 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

“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.


43 posted on 11/11/2010 7:13:46 AM PST by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozarkgirl

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?


44 posted on 11/11/2010 7:13:51 AM PST by Vor Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
are we ready to disenfranchise somebody who wrote-in “Lisa Murkowsky” instead of “Lisa Murkowski?”

Are we ready to disenfranchise somebody who shows up to vote on November 11th?

45 posted on 11/11/2010 7:15:03 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

“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!


46 posted on 11/11/2010 7:15:47 AM PST by SeattleBruce (We voted - NOW we fight against vote fraud! Tea Party like it's 1773! Pray 2 Chron. 7:14!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

I think Joe should challenge Lisa to duel.
He can go over the rules after their done.....


47 posted on 11/11/2010 7:16:27 AM PST by G Larry (When you're "RIGHT" you don't look for ways to compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
Oh no - where have we seen this before?


48 posted on 11/11/2010 7:16:46 AM PST by SeattleBruce (We voted - NOW we fight against vote fraud! Tea Party like it's 1773! Pray 2 Chron. 7:14!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Jackson57
What is “close enough”?

Would you count the vote if they didn't dot the i?

49 posted on 11/11/2010 7:16:55 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (If not for the double standard, liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Next thing you know they’ll actually be counting that one vote for Jesus Christ as an ‘intended’ vote for Murkowski.

Don't be silly. That vote was intended for Obama.

50 posted on 11/11/2010 7:17:07 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson