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 ...
Anyone been over to DU to see if they’re actually pulling for the cow?
Thanks for signing up today to let us know about your concerns.
How do you know someone didn’t write “Murkowsky” as a protest vote knowing it wouldn’t be counted?
You are right. If the people of Alaska can effect a change in the law to allow “close enough” spellings to count, then fine. But not this election. The standard has been set.
Wonder what todays count looks like?
Look, I wanted Joe Miller to win, but it is Murkowski’s right to run as a write in candidate. It is obvious that she got more votes in the election. We can be disappointed, but to say the election is being stolen is simply not accurate.
We can be disappointed, but to say the election is being stolen is simply not accurate.
We are in agreement!
“How do you know someone didnt write Murkowsky as a protest vote knowing it wouldnt be counted?”
Or testing to see if Alaska would uphold clear election law.
Results in from last night suggest murk is holding steady at about 89.8% uncontested votes in the write-in - again, this will put them in virtually a dead heat if Miller gains nothing more (and I think he will as he already has) among absentees and military votes (due on 11/17). Let’s say he builds up a 5,000 vote cushion between himself and murk’s uncontested votes - then they’ll scream and yell about the contested/counted votes for another two months...
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/10GENR/data/resultsWI.htm
Hey shield - there’s also this string today about Miller’s Facebook post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2626026/posts
Here’s another update:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2626026/posts?page=44#44
IMPORTANT INFO FOLKS: (Thanks to a posting by Freeper deport.)
13,766 Overseas Military Ballots were transmitted in 2008.
Hopefully at least half that many were transmitted in 2010 and they go heavily for Joe. PRAY!!!
Thanks.....those military men love Joe so let us hope as many went out this year as last...to cover Joe Miller.
The numbers tonight are showing a 90.16% for Murky after todays counting. 62,434 write in votes and 314 precincts counted of the 438 precincts.
Slim, but fighting chance - that's my assessment.
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/10GENR/data/results.htm
Oh, Miller’s down by less than 4.5% to write-in (with overall counts). Basically that means that between military and challenges he needs to make up that gap of around 8 to 9,000 votes. Mebbe he gains 3,000 at most out of a total of 10,000 military votes (?), so he’ll need to make up the other, say 5,000+ votes in the challenges.
There are currently around 5300 out of 69,000 write in votes that are ‘challenged’ but counted for murk. Given AK election law, it will all come down to how it is interpreted - and this will possibly/probably go to the SCOTUS, perhaps depending on Miller’s inclination.
He’s a fighter - no more Mr. Rossi nice guy. (Too bad for Dino, by the way, but the fight for him was lost in 2004. If he’d fought those felony votes, he would have been a popular governor of WA ST., imho.)
The law is the law and she had every right to run as a write in but why would she be considered a serious candidate? Why would people vote for her?
It sounds somewhat suspicious that these votes are all legitimate as write-ins are usually never successful.
“Basically that means that between military and challenges he needs to make up that gap of around 8 to 9,000 votes.”
I should add that with the additional absentees Miller made up some percentage - about a quarter % or half % off of “write-in”s lead. So Sen. write-in will be up by say 4% on 190,000 total votes (7,600) before the military votes are cast. Let’s just say the military votes peel off another 2,500 or so votes - and Miller needs to prevail on approx. 5,100 of his challenged votes (will they uphold clear AK election law??)
With this election year, I wouldn’t be surprised if as many military absentees were sent out as in 2008. So we’ll just have to see how many are back and hoping the military is as pro Miller as we’ve read.
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.