Even after they fought like hell to have a printed list of write-in candidates??
Unbelievable.
Why have laws? It's a question I have every morning driving to work, watching drivers break traffic laws without a care in the world.
Even that criteria would eliminate half the ballots cited in the article.
I hurt my tongue trying for a "phonetic understanding" of that...
Hey, I want Joe Miller to win as much as you do, but are we ready to disenfranchise somebody who wrote-in “Lisa Murkowsky”
instead of “Lisa Murkowski?”
Wow. Next thing you know they’ll actually be counting that one vote for Jesus Christ as an ‘intended’ vote for Murkowski.
Why can’t they accept just the Lisa part???
Wait just a minute. They allow a list to be in the voting booth with the correct spelling of the write in candidates names and yet they will allow misspellings as long as the “intent” is there? What about the intent to look at the list?
And who defines “phonetic understanding “???.
What is the law?
Moosecowsky and her father are malefactors..
The TPCaucus needs to grow further(there/here) and impact the primarys..
Federal money needs to be cut off for Alaska..
Murkowski ASKED FOR and RECEIVED permission to distribute a list of write-in candidates to voters, so that they could be sure to spell her name correctly.
So... my only conclusion would then be that anyone who still got it wrong was INTENTIONAL in not voting correctly for her.
New meaning to the phrase “close enough for government work.”
this one is clearly headed towards a 2 or 3 year court battle
Any name containing the letter, L, i, u or r. If that isn't enough, there's the whole rest of the alphabet.
“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.”
It is attonishing that the elections office would ignore a clearly stated law on the basis of some dubious court cases. It should be the opposite. The law stands unless a court has intervened. No court has intervened. If a court declares the law unconstitutional or issues an injunction, the elections office should comply. Otherwise, it should follow the existing law.
I think Joe should challenge Lisa to duel.
He can go over the rules after their done.....
Arbitrary and subjective decision. Didn't SCOTUS stop the Bush-Gore recounts for exactly this reason?
Who needs laws when the RAT party has so many all-knowing Karnaks?
Why even have laws if you can ignore them and make up your own rules? FORCE them to follow the law even if it has to be taken to the Supreme Court.