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.
Because the Murkowski family that was in charge always expected to be on the party line of the ballot and did not want to be challenged by someone on the write-in line.
Besides, it makes sense. How else could Miller be insisting on “exactness” if the law did not require it?
If the law reads “intent”, then everyone would be telling him to just shut up.
If people are just too damn lazy to follow the rules, why should they get special consideration?
The statute is on the thread.
It says ‘as it appears on the filing..or...the last name of the candidate’
It makes no mention of spelling, or exactitude but given the nature of a write in ballot, it is only logical to presume absent other direction that a discernable last name, is a vote.
As a matter of fact, yes. It could hardly be "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy", if it were spelled differently.
I hear some voters wrote in Miller and that none of their write in stuff counted as a vote.
And why the heck are the citizens paying for all the kids to go to school, and making literacy programs available to adults if not for times like now?
There's no excuse not to spell the name right on the ballot for heaven's sake.
And what happens if there are two write-ins (Murkowski being such a success) that are similar.
What if it’s Williams and Whiting? Would everyone who missed the silent h be disenfranchised or would the officials just guess which one the voter meant. Would it be decided if the name had a t or l because that’s also going to be subjective on the handwriting interpretation.
I just see this as a very slippery slope because you’re encouraging the Democrats (aka cheaters) to exploit this whole write-in thing down the road.
I can sympathize with people who meant to vote a certain way, and want their votes to count accordingly.
This is exactly what happened with Zero. Our side had no idea how much GOTV we needed to compensate for Acorn and fraud and community organizin’, so Zero won it. We did not get a mulligan.
Murk’s village voters had no idea how much GOTV the Tea Party had, and under-showed-up, too. They got a mulligan.
Lesson learned: fine-tune the write-in vote at the federal level and everybody can have mulligans in every race.
You’re full of it tonight. :)
“the name” is required to appear “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy”. Let’s examine what that means...
First, the candidate is both required and allowed to specify the correct spelling of their name. Further, the candidate is allowed to specify that once, and only once. Otherwise, the same candidate could list themselves in multitudinous ways, gaining several footholds on the same ballot.
Second, the candidate’s official name for themselves is the key that now unlocks each separate vote from the people writing in names. Specifically, the name must be presented to resemble the candidate’s self-specified name, in that it must appear “as” the candidate specified on the form.
Now, what does “as” mean? According to dictionary.com it means “to the same degree, amount, or extent; similarly; equally”
Hmmm... “Equally”? As in “equal to” the presentation of the candidate’s name that very own candidate declared to be their official name?
The law allows for the last name to be written in, rather than the whole name.
Oh - and then the law itself says that there are no exceptions to the rules outside those included in the rules.
But you already knew that, you just don’t agree with the sentiment, right? ;-P
(Yes, I am being jovial in our sparring, FRiend.)
Very true. This further highlights the problem of public education imo. People too stupid to spell names correctly on ballots are expected to know anything about economics? Of course not, just like the left wants it. Public education is the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto btw.
If “voter intent” is to be the standard why don’t we skip elections, and appoint politicians by poll? (don’t laugh this will be proposed by the left within 100 years!)
“The Military votes have not even all arrived to be counted yet.”
I’m glad you mentioned that. I’ve been wondering what happened to the military votes and was beginning to worry. Seems all anyone has talked about lately is write-ins and absentees.
Because according to some Freeprs and conservatives following the rules EVERYONE IN THE STATE KNEW BEFORE THE ELECTION IS CHEATING...I’d have to say yes. Of course primary voters being disenchancised means nothing to these people. And election laws being overruled to allow printed write in sheets to be passed out means nothing to these people. I certainly hope I never hear these people complain about stolen elections again since they are okay with it in this instance.
A candidate should not be given multiple chances to win. Lisa Murcowski could have run as a Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or "write-in", from the very beginning.
What she did was lose the Republican nomination, then considered running as an Independent, but it was too late for that. Then she tried to get the Libertarians to give her their ballot slot. They didn't go for that crap, so she was left with running as a "write-in".
This is a basic flaw in Alaska's election law. (Doubtless, many other states have this same problem.) The law should force a candidate to commit to the way they will run, by primary election day. After that date, they should not be able to change parties, or run as a "write-in".
Had Murcowski run as a "write-in", from the very beginning, would she have won? We will never know, though I am inclined to doubt it. It would have created a completely different dynamic, which probably wouldn't have worked in her favor.
We are coming for them.
I agree.
Of course, there is no way of knowing how representative the examples CBS chose to use really are.
True, but this is CBS, so it's a safe bet that the examples were selected to elicit maximum sympathy for Murcowski. Also, since it is CBS, some might be "fake but accurate".
If it is misspelled, it is not her name. I don’t understand why laws don’t seem to matter to so many here.
http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/statutes/title15/chapter15/section360.htm
AS 15.15.360. Rules For Counting Ballots.
(a) The election board shall count ballots according to the following rules:
(1) A voter may mark a ballot only by filling in, making “X” marks, diagonal, horizontal, or vertical marks, solid marks, stars, circles, asterisks, checks, or plus signs that are clearly spaced in the oval opposite the name of the candidate, proposition, or question that the voter desires to designate.
(2) A failure to properly mark a ballot as to one or more candidates does not itself invalidate the entire ballot.
(3) If a voter marks fewer names than there are persons to be elected to the office, a vote shall be counted for each candidate properly marked.
(4) If a voter marks more names than there are persons to be elected to the office, the votes for candidates for that office may not be counted.
(5) The mark specified in (1) of this subsection shall be counted only if it is substantially inside the oval provided, or touching the oval so as to indicate clearly that the voter intended the particular oval to be designated.
(6) Improper marks on the ballot may not be counted and do not invalidate marks for candidates properly made.
(7) An erasure or correction invalidates only that section of the ballot in which it appears.
(8) A vote marked for the candidate for President or Vice-President of the United States is considered and counted as a vote for the election of the presidential electors.
(9) Write-in votes are not invalidated by writing in the name of a candidate whose name is printed on the ballot unless the election board determines, on the basis of other evidence, that the ballot was so marked for the purpose of identifying the ballot.
(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate’s name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate’s name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.
(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.
(12) If the write-in vote is for governor and lieutenant governor, the vote shall be counted if the oval is filled in and the names, as they appear on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor or the last names of the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, or the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate for governor or the last name of the candidate for governor is written in the space provided.
(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.
(c) [Repealed, Sec. 24 ch 113 SLA 2003].
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.