Posted on 11/11/2010 3:34:25 PM PST by mdittmar
Joe Miller, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for Alaska Senate, may be on the cusp of losing the Senate race to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who ran as a write-in candidate after losing the GOP primary to Miller.
There were more write-in votes than there were votes for Miller, and the vast majority of those ballots seem to have been cast for Murkowski. Miller chosen to address this by challenging votes that appear to have been for Murkowski even when there is only the smallest of justifications for doing so.
Consider: According to the Associated Press, an observer for Miller today challenged a vote that seemed to be for Murkowski because even though her name was spelled and printed correctly, the "L" in Lisa was written in cursive. (Or just have a look at the challenged ballot pictured above.)
Other challenges have been for sloppy handwriting or tiny misspellings - "Lisa Merkowski," for example. While it would seem to be obvious that a write-in for "Lisa Merkowski" is a vote for Murkowski, Miller doesn't want it counted.
Alaska officials have said they will take into account voter intent when considering the ballots - which presumably means that the "Merkowski" vote would go to Murkowski. But Miller's legal team argues that state law does not allow such an interpretation: If the name on a write-in ballot does not exactly match the name of the candidate, they say, it doesn't count.
The legal question will be settled next week, when Miller's legal challenge to the state's position will be heard in court. (Miller already filed suit to stop the count altogether, but a judge turned him down.) If Miller's camp can successfully challenge enough ballots to overcome Murkowski's apparent lead - and the courts decide that their interpretation of the law is correct - he will become a senator.
The issue isn't just a legal one, however. Should Miller triumph by disqualifying a large number of ballots despite clear voter intent, he will have essentially have "won" an election in which he was not the candidate for whom Alaskans tried to cast the most votes.
Alaska officials say they want to count votes for Murkowski that are less than perfect because it means not disenfranchising Alaskans simply for sloppiness or spelling errors. For Miller, however, what the voters meant appears to be less of a concern than finding a way to Washington.
Right, and why did she want that spot? Because she knew as a write-in the voters had to not only write her name down but spell it right.
There...fixed it!
“Do the right thing? The right thing was for Lisa chicken-neck to concede and back Joe when he won the primary.”
Again:
(1) I strongly disapprove of what Murkowski did. She should have bowed out after the primary loss. However, the people of Alaska allow “write ins” (which I also think is wrong) and it is their state not mine.
(2) I DON’T THINK JOE MILLER SHOULD CONCEDE. However, I do think using legal manuevers to have a person’s vote tossed because they can’t spell a name exactly right is wrong. It isn’t fair to the voter. Joe Miller should not resort to that tactic. He will benefit more in the long run to take the high road. Conservatives don’t resort to liberal legal tactics.
(3) I think Joe should be Senator, but IF the people of Alaska, in accordance with their law, chose to write in another candidate....then I’m going to respect that outcome and not quible over misspelled names. This kind of “win at all costs” attitude is bad. That is a Democratic Party tactic.
(4) Once again, I DON’T LIKE OR AGREE WITH ALASKA’s write in laws....but I am not a citizen of Alaska and have NO SAY.
“BARF ALERTS” are standard practice and courtesy here on FR, when posting something from enemy territory.
“I’m of his mindset, rules are rules; otherwise it’s chaos. If they wanted it to mean ‘intent’ - it would have been written that way.”
So, you don’t think that “original intent” in interpreting the U.S. Constitution is important...only the exact wording? Not following original intent, verses letter, has caused all kinds of problems with SCOTUS decisions. The same can be true for laws at state level.
Goodness, I WANT Miller to win, but not by legal manuevers that will create resentment in his state.
Bottom line is that he is not only losing an election, but credibility in the eyes of Alaskans. Joe Miller has to please them not me.
Fedgov expects us proles to abide by every one of the hundreds of thousands of regulations they've promulgated through the federal register without even having the benefit of being actual law, yet when it suits the powers that be, the very letter of the law, if not the intent as well, is to be tossed by the roadside ? They can bloody well choke on the law as far as I'm concerned.
(3) The will of the voters must be respected...even when I disagree with there choice. If not, then it isn’t a democracy.
and
Do the “right” thing and it will come back in dividens.
What is "there choice"?? What is a "dividens"??
The problem with discerning the intent of the voter is that it cannot be done without telepathy. An intelligent voter should first and foremost not take chances and misspell his or her desired write-in candidate's name.
Since this is an election for a federal, not state, office, I think I have a right to be concerned and to voice my opinion as the outcome can potentially affect me in a different state through voting on a US Senate Bill by the Alaskan Senators.
The cbs argument hinges on "tiny" errors allegedly made by voters filling in the write in candidate's name(s). What exactly is a "tiny" error? The law does not specify. This does not prevent cbs from glossing over that issue and asserting that Murkowski should win. But what happens if there are two write in candidates, and their names differ by a single letter? Should a vote for one be interpreted as a vote for another, if that other candidate is close to winning? Please note that this slippery slope is avoided by strict interpretation of the law.
A voter that really cares will be sufficiently motivated to spell a candidate's name correctly. People who can't spell should not conduct business with the expectation that other people will rescue them to correct their (not "there") mistakes. The more important the business, the more care that should be taken by the people conducting the business. There is little business that is more important than voting in a national election.
I believe the following does address spelling. The statute states the following ...”the names, as they appear on the write-in declaration of candidacy.”
If the write-in declaration says Murcowski then Murkowski would not count according to the statute and I believe that is what part of this is about.
“What is “there choice”?? What is a “dividens”??”
You make my point. People will make spelling errors. I obviously do all the time.
I realy don’t care what CBS thinks. I do care about what the people of Alaska think. It is their election not mine.
Miller was the better choice....but he isn’t my choice to make. BTW - I don’t like being the one to “appear” to be supporting Lisa over Joe.....I DO NOT. I just think voter’s choices must be respected.....even those that spell badly. The SCOTUS threw out “literacy tests” a long time ago.
What is your hurry with Joe Conceding?
The Military votes are not counted yet. What’s with you. Can’t handle a conservative who doesn’t roll over when you want him to?
IF he has to concede, it’s HIS race and will do it when he says so. That’s something you got to leave with.
Are you being a dope on purpose?
“as they appear on the write-in declaration of candidacy”
“What is your hurry with Joe Conceding?”
I DON’T WANT JOE TO CONCEDE. All I have said is IMO he should stop trying to get poorly spelled write in ballots tossed.
IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL IF THE MILITARY ABSENTEE BALLOTS CAUSED HIM TO WIN!
Folks...please fully read my posts and stop accusing me of things I don’t advocate. I’m really wishing I had never written anything about this. Regardless I what someone may think, I support Joe Miller. However, I’m not an Alaskan citizen and my support is meanignless.
You are overly obsessed with Joe - you made that obvious.
He doesn’t need your advice. He got this far w/o you and your advice.
“You are overly obsessed with Joe - you made that obvious.
....He doesn’t need your advice. He got this far w/o you and your advice.”
Whatever you say......it just isn’t worth the time discussing it further.
You make a strong argument, that if the State constitution (and its intent) has rules which support someone we dont like, we should put up with it. And I would agree if “murky” actually won it fair and square. Even ignoring the highly unethical move of standing as a write-in when she lost the primary, there are reports of voter fraud and intimidation by her campaign and it seems that the any legal maneuver that miller uses to knock the RINO back is fair game, under the circumstances.
And you make my point. Some people who make spelling errors often expect concessions from the rest of us. What do you want, affirmative action for the spelling-challenged, even when the law forbids concessions?
Literacy tests are banned by law, but that does not compel the state to make up for your shortcomings. Live with the consequences of your shortcomings or fix them. Don't demand others come to your rescue.
>>>“Simply a spelling error” is NOT a minor thing when dealing with write in ballots.
I recognize these voters PROBABLY meant to vote for the senator, but as a legal principle I can see requiring exact spelling on a write in.
How else can you possibly “know” who someone really planned to vote for on a write in??? There is no other way.<<<
I live in Alaska, and here’s the bad news. The state supreme court has decided, a while ago, that “the intent of the voter” overrides spelling the name correctly. That means that a vote for Murcowsky or Mirkowski or Merkowskee will count as a vote for Lisa Murkowski. That’s established law up here. I voted for Miller, but right now he’s looking like the sore loser. It ain’t pretty.
I don’t care what people say but it is pathetic that Joe Miller is even in this position against a write in candidate. He had his name typed on the sheet and could not come up with a easy majority. Some were wanting him to run as President....what are people thinking. He should have won this 85-15 percent. This is tragic.
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.