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 ...
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.
Arbitrary and subjective decision. Didn't SCOTUS stop the Bush-Gore recounts for exactly this reason?
LSI Murkswke
I hurt my tongue trying for a “phonetic understanding” of that...
+++++++++++++++++
Not to mention your brain, huh?
Yes we do. She had her chance in the primary and lost.
“The Alaska state law is clear ... so how is it disenfranchisment to actually hold people to a standard?”
Right! I ‘intended’ to vote, but got busy, had to take the kids to soccer, etc. I’VE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED!!!
My vote should COUNT!!!
Come on - where is the line drawn? Oh, I dunno, perhaps by applying the settled AK election LAW?? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???
As has been noted on this thread, the fact that Alaska allowed into the polling booths a list with the name spelled accurately means that to now apply some leeway judgment is unlawful by the Gore v Bush SCOTUS standard! Allowing an arbitrary judgment after the fact is not lawful. It may be merciful, but it certainly isn’t lawful.
Who needs laws when the RAT party has so many all-knowing Karnaks?
Why even have laws if you can ignore them and make up your own rules? FORCE them to follow the law even if it has to be taken to the Supreme Court.
No, they have clearly disenfranchised themselves. But what about someone who showed up on November 2nd at 8:00:01 (one second after the polls close at 8 p.m.) Are the watches at the polls synchronized to an atomic clock? If the voter has his hand on the door and is pushing, does the poll worker push back?
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.