A Review of ‘Voter Intent’ In Alaska’s Supreme Court 2006 Ruling

Riley Driver's Point of View ^ | November 28, 2010 | Riley Driver

[RileyD, nwJ]

Why A Review
Alaska’s Lt Governor Campbell and the Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich continue to ask Senatorial candidate Joe Miller to withdraw his challenge to the use of ‘voter intent’ to determine the validity of thousands of the votes cast for Lisa Murkowski.

They argue Alaska’s Supreme Court has ruled in favor of ‘voter intent’ in the past so it clearly should have been used in the current write-in effort of Lisa Murkowski. If that is true, and it was, Campbell and Ruedrich should be asking for an expedited ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court, but they are not. Instead, they continue to ask Joe Miller to throw in the towel.

Why? Why are they so adamant about this case not going to the Alaska Supreme Court? To find out, I took a look at a case where the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in favor of ‘voter intent’ and in the process discovered why they do not want this case to go forward.

The Election of 2006
In this case a candidate won by one (1) vote, whereupon the loser (the incumbent) requested a recount and won by one (1) vote. The challenger then appealed the recount results, alleging that the Division had improperly failed to count six ballots. Complete details may be found here.

[RileyD, nwJ]

...skip to ....

The Smoking Gun
Continuing on, the second paragraph below contains the smoking gun the both Campbell and Ruedrich do not want out in the open.

“Reading these provisions together, an overvote occurs if the voter has voted for two candidates with “marks” as defined by subsection. 360(a)(1) that clearly indicate the voter's intent to vote for more than one candidate.11  Because a mark meeting the requirements of subsection. 360(a)(1) cannot be counted unless the voter's intent is clear, we begin by analyzing whether the second mark on each overvoted ballot clearly indicated the voter's intent to vote for a second candidate.”

“Moses argues in favor of a bright line rule that would consider the ballots overvoted without examining voters' intent.   But the terms of the statute itself make voter intent paramount.   The statute requires that before a mark is counted as a vote, it must comply with the requirements under subsection .360(a)(1) and clearly indicate voter intent as required by subsection .360(a)(5).   These terms are mandatory and require strict compliance.12  Contrary to Moses's argument that judicial review of ballots would open a “Pandora's Box,” AS 15.20.510 specifically envisions such a review in a recount appeal, providing that “[t]he inquiry in the appeal shall extend to the questions whether or not the director has properly determined what ballots, parts of ballots, or marks for candidates on ballots are valid.” (boldface italics added for emphasis)

[RileyD, nwJ]

Bottom line:
The statutes and the Alaska Supreme Court’s past reliance upon them favor Joe Miller’s legal position. Now he and everyone else waits to see if the Alaska Supreme Court will once again apply the statutes as written.

[Sacajaweau]

There's a trick to that case...And it's whether the vote could be for this candidate or that candidate.

Our case with Miller is totally different. You have to find the rule that applies and in our case, it's specifically, the spelling rule.

[RileyD, nwJ]

No trick involved. Statutes in that case directed looking at voter intent. That is the smoking gun here, because you are correct, "Our case with Miller is totally different."

The Alaska Supreme Court applied the statute as written in that case. If they do the same in Miller vs Murkowski, voter intent will not be considered.

Cheers!

[presently no screen name]

Thank you for the thread and research!

GO JOE!

[presently no screen name]

fyi...

[onyx]

Thanks for the ping.
I spotted the article and didn’t want bad or sad news before I went to bed.
I hope this is hopeful.
GO JOE MILLER!

[warm n fuzzy]

The Alaska Supreme Court is one of the most lie-beral courts in the USA.

They have contempt for the LAW as written, and our US and State Constitution.

IMO they WILL find against Joe and for princess bug eyed.

Then it will go to the federal courts because we are under feral gooberment rule when it comes to any changes in our election LAWS for some reason.

What happens then is anybody’s guess.

[CaptainK]

I wonder how long this thing could drag out.

Hopefully past Jan 3rd so she loses her seniority.

[RileyD, nwJ]

I am hoping long enough for Joe Miller to win it all, but the post prior to yours gives me pause.

Now for some sleep so I can work tomorrow.

Cheers!

[RightFighter]

How many votes did Murkowski end up with that were spelled correctly and not subject to any kind of challenge? I thought it was still enough to put her over the top.

[presently no screen name]

LOL! I didn’t want to read it either tonight.

[TheThinker]

Did you see that Norm Coleman urged Miller to give up? Ironic, no?

[goat granny]

Has those encourageing him to give up is just reported or have they stated in public? I have to hear it from their own mouths....they cannot hide behind a he said she said...

[RileyD, nwJ]

Yes and Fred Thompson as well.

[RileyD, nwJ]

In public or in print. Coleman and Thompson on TV.

Alaska's Lt. Governor in print as well as Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich. A good place to start is with the link here to a Thomas Lamb article at RedCounty.com. Other articles he has written, here, here,, and here on this will provide plenty of background data as well.

Cheers!

[goat granny]

Thanks for the links, read a couple. If Miller didn’t ask for their advice, they should shut the he!! up. Go Miller...

[no dems]

I’m sure the Miller Lawyers are aware of this, but, to be safe, get this info to them; please.