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 ...
An e is an e and an i is an i. An i stops being an i when it is looped around an untouched area, and an e stops being an e when there there’s no untouched inner area (assuming differences within/between English alphabet running-script lettering.) Is that “scientific” enough for you?
What an insightful question - but I think you need to rephrase it. The correcting wording is - "What's it to you Pal?"
This guy Campbell is obviously a Murkowski tool. He was dressed down on the air by Mark Levin for even suggesting that voter "intent" could be assessed by the election judges.
Mark went so far as to read the relevant portion of the Alaska election law to him, which SPECIFICALLY states that the name written on the ballot MUST match the candidate's name, as filed with the state elections board.
There's absolutely NO wiggle room in Alaska election law that allows a subjective analysis of voter "intent". The name written in on the ballot either matches the candidate's name, or it doesn't. Period. End of story.
“but are we ready to disenfranchise somebody who wrote-in “Lisa Murkowsky”
instead of “Lisa Murkowski?”
How the hell do you know that the voter who wrote Murkowsky with a “y” didn’t know full well what they were doing and actually INTENDED to vote for someone named Murkowsky NOT Murkowski with an “i.”
You don’t.
You are trying to steal the vote for Murkowsky and give it to Murkowski.
“If MerCOWski loses just 5% of those ‘write in’ votes, then there is basically a ‘tie’.
If she loses 6%, Miller wins.”
Actually, Miller needs to make up approx. 4.66% across the *overall* vote total (approx. 174,000 so far.) He has write-ins (write-ins not counted for Murk help Miller directly of course - there are 8+ percent being counted that are in dispute - and about 2.75% that are not counted and disputed, or undisputed not for murk), absentees (don’t know how many have been counted yet) and military ballots (deadline 11/17 - don’t know how many there are) with which to make up approx. 10,800 votes.
If it were just up to the write in votes - he’d have to make up 11.6%. But he’s making gains in absentees and will I think make gains in the military ballots - so it’s up to the sheer numbers in those categories that makes the difference in this race.
“There’s absolutely NO wiggle room in Alaska election law that allows a subjective analysis of voter “intent”.
That’s good news for the good guys...
When does an undotted i become tall enough to be a lower case L?
>>> “What’s it to you Pal?”
No, it was correct as it was. And the question stands.
On Nov. 3rd there was 69,797 votes for Joe Miller to date which must include the absentees he now has 82,180 the write in category had 81,000+ now there are 92,979 does that also include absentees?
Even if Murkowsky doesn't exist?
No it’s pretty obvious you’re wrong. And my question to you is what’s it to you what’s it to me Pal?
In yesterdays count Murky got 98% of the write ins and Joe got only 2 votes.
Requiring someone to cast a legal vote in order for it to be counted is called “the law”.
I hear you. I just wonder, if the shoe were on the other foot, if everyone would be as vehement in support of tossing out write-in votes for Joe Miler, or Jon Miller, or Joseph Miller.
The voter voted for “Murkowsky” a non-qualified write-in candidate. Not “Murkowski” a qualified write-in candidate.
This is why the Alaskan law is clear that the spelling must be correct. No exceptions.
You’re a thief giving Murkowsky’s votes to Murkowski.
Your games are lame.
That’s good news for the good guys...
Only IF Alaskans follow their own law.
Concurring bump.
Election officials also allowed wristbands with her name on them.
Voters could wear the bands into the booth & read/write the name correctly from that ‘cheat sheet’.
Seems election officials are bending over backwards in Alaska to allow a person who lost the PRIMARY to still get elected.
The idea there being that voters writing in a name is little different than having the name pre-printed on the ballot: the vote itself is the marking of the bubble (or whatever the format is)
I personally can appreciating wanting to give a letter or two margin of error but the law is the law when it comes to elections. You can't accept "Lisa" or "Lisa M." here anyway as there was another Lisa M. (surname forgotten) as a write-in.
A legal vote is (put in law).
Alaska voters knew it. Murkowski spent money on ads and bracelets to make sure her name was spelled correctly.
If the voter didn't do it... too bad, too sad. Maybe next time, they will do what is required of them.
A lower case L rises above lower case lettering and is proportionally more thinly-looped than other lower case Es and/or other lower case lettering. It’s “scientific.”
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.