[paul in cape]

Yes. The law was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. I assume they knew what they were doing when they said the name has to be spelled exactly.

Why is it the liberals have no problem re-inventing the law when it suits their needs.

If you remember Bush v Gore, the main problem was that the Florida Supreme Court said that the election law could be changed during the recount. The US Supreme Court blasted them 6-3 and said "NO." The 5-4 vote was for the remedy.

[mrsmith]

In Bush V Gore the S.C noted that the law did not define how to determine the intent of the voter and therefore it was allowable for the Florida courts to define how to do so.
Since the law has defined what is a ‘good’ vote here the courts have to use some other excuse to justify their authority.
Probably by determining the law is unconstitutional for some reason.

I assume they will say it is unreasonable to expect people to be able to spell and therefore the law unreasonably restricts the right to vote. That should have an interesting effect on contract law (though there is surely already some such rule, I doubt it is extreme enough for this instance).

[Cinnamontea]

The US Supreme Court blasted them 6-3

I'm pretty sure it was 7 to 2.

[longtermmemmory]

I think that ever changing is what is happening here.

Murky loses the primary so she tries write in...

She has a difficult name so:

she demands lists (law changed)

she demands spelling does not count (law change)

she demands procedure of bubble and name does not matter (law change)

there is no end to these games.