Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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.
there is a conjunction after that, is there not?
And after said conjunction, it does not legislate spelling.
now you're arguing like a democrat by skipping the phrase that does not suit you.
It only says 'last name' not 'last name "explicitly spelled" ' and a write in ballot by it's nature assume human eyes doing the reading and counting.
12 does
-PJ
There will be intense pressure on Miller to concede before the military ballots can be counted.
Pray for his strength!
Is “Merkowski” her last name? No.
Is “Moocowski” her last name? No.
There is nothing in the law that allows for “voter intent”. It has to be as it appears, or the last name. A misspelling is NOT the last name.
I believe its a type of fly. One just flew by my ear. It was making a buzzing sound, but I paid no attention to it. It has no real brain, thus it does not think.
“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.”
Let me state the following:
(1) I don’t think write in votes should be allowed - but that is a matter for the state to decide.
(2) As an outsider to Alaska I support Miller and think Murkoski is a poor loser. She should have accepted primary defeat.
(3) The will of the voters must be respected...even when I disagree with there choice. If not, then it isn’t a democracy.
Therefore, I think Joe Miller is hurting himself and conservatism to get too much into the “letter” of the law and not its “intent.” “If” clear intent is expressed in the ballot via write-in (although slightly misspelled) then the vote needs to be honored.
I prefer Joe and dislike Lisa, but I must respect the voters of that state as I would want to be respected in my own. To win on overly strict legalese is a “liberal” way of doing things. Do the “right” thing and it will come back in dividens.
No, Joe Miller is not disenfranchising anybody. The voters who did not bother to learn to spell the name correctly did it themselves. We cannot change the law during the election to benefit one person. If someone writes Cruella DeVille, are we to assume they forgot her name but meant to vote for Murkowski?
Thanks for the info. It always seems like the good guy loses in these instances of close elections and sore losers.
Lets say we pay attention to voter intent. Whose to say that a write-in for Moocowski indicates the voter, thinking exact spelling is required, is sarcastically stating that they do not want elected the “cow”. Thus, it could be someone voting with a sardonic wit. Better to require exact spelling rather than subjective decisions as to what the voter was thinking and how they expressed it.
More proof you are seeing what you want to see.
12 has exactly the same language as 11.
Except 12 is for a Gubernatorial candidate.
“as filed...OR....”
What this Freeper said.
Who is Lisq Murkowski?
Whoever he/she is, he/she has one vote for senator.
All your points are well taken. However there are answers.
Liberals have not relied on “legalese” which implies a strict application of legal details.
Liberals have relied on things like “The law says the democrats cannot substitute a new candidate in NJ for the crooked Toricelli but hey, it will be great if the democrats can win, so law be damned”!
Point 2: Unless you can read people’s minds, you THINK they meant something but you, I, Joe Miller and the election commission cannot possibly know that for sure. You are not reading the voter’s intent, you are injecting your own rather logical assumption.
But your assumption isn’t the voter’s intent, and that’s not the law in Alaska.
Who is the Lisq person?
Joe Miller was not a candidate when Alaska passed the law saying that a write-in ballot must be EXACT.
Why did Alaska not say that “intent of the voter” was the controlling factor? Instead, they insisted that it be “EXACT.”
Why?
Exact...?!?!?!?!?
Where are you getting that?
post from before election
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.