Posted on 11/11/2010 3:34:25 PM PST by mdittmar
Joe Miller, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for Alaska Senate, may be on the cusp of losing the Senate race to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who ran as a write-in candidate after losing the GOP primary to Miller.
There were more write-in votes than there were votes for Miller, and the vast majority of those ballots seem to have been cast for Murkowski. Miller chosen to address this by challenging votes that appear to have been for Murkowski even when there is only the smallest of justifications for doing so.
Consider: According to the Associated Press, an observer for Miller today challenged a vote that seemed to be for Murkowski because even though her name was spelled and printed correctly, the "L" in Lisa was written in cursive. (Or just have a look at the challenged ballot pictured above.)
Other challenges have been for sloppy handwriting or tiny misspellings - "Lisa Merkowski," for example. While it would seem to be obvious that a write-in for "Lisa Merkowski" is a vote for Murkowski, Miller doesn't want it counted.
Alaska officials have said they will take into account voter intent when considering the ballots - which presumably means that the "Merkowski" vote would go to Murkowski. But Miller's legal team argues that state law does not allow such an interpretation: If the name on a write-in ballot does not exactly match the name of the candidate, they say, it doesn't count.
The legal question will be settled next week, when Miller's legal challenge to the state's position will be heard in court. (Miller already filed suit to stop the count altogether, but a judge turned him down.) If Miller's camp can successfully challenge enough ballots to overcome Murkowski's apparent lead - and the courts decide that their interpretation of the law is correct - he will become a senator.
The issue isn't just a legal one, however. Should Miller triumph by disqualifying a large number of ballots despite clear voter intent, he will have essentially have "won" an election in which he was not the candidate for whom Alaskans tried to cast the most votes.
Alaska officials say they want to count votes for Murkowski that are less than perfect because it means not disenfranchising Alaskans simply for sloppiness or spelling errors. For Miller, however, what the voters meant appears to be less of a concern than finding a way to Washington.
“If someone writes Cruella DeVille, are we to assume they forgot her name but meant to vote for Murkowski?”
Well, maybe.
Especially when the dolts were provided with a cheat sheet right there at the polls...
If I lose the primary, I will not contest it..Lisa said. She lost..she got mad because the Alaskans wanted someone, they chose, not one who had been put there by her dad. She gathered everyone who’d helped ole Papa help her ruin the voting laws of Alaska by write-ins and other sheenagans. So now cBS is saying Joe Miller, who was chosen during the primary to be the candidate of choice by the Alaskan Republicans, is trying to disenfranchise Alaskans?
Correct.
And we are clearly speaking about ballots that were intended to be read, by someone.
The legislature could have demanded exactitude in spelling, when drafting the law and did not.
There is no criteria in that statute demanding perfection in spelling, clearly the responsibility falls on the individual tallying the votes, subject to the challenge process.
(which may or may not speak further on the subject, but it is CLEARLY not in this instance)
Let's see what Websters has to say, shall we?
disenfranchise - n. to deprive of the right to vote
It's my understanding that the ballots in question belong to people who actually voted. Thus by definition, these individuals were not disenfranchised. If these individuals have their votes disqualified because they did not follow the rules, then the responsibility falls on them - not Joe Miller. But to say that Miller is denying them the right to vote is ludicrous. C-BS should be ashamed.
Why?
Because the requirement is to "write the name
as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy,>
of the candidate or the last name of the candidate."
With the kep phrase being "as it appears" along with where it appear "on the write-in declaration of candidcy"
Don't understand all the efforts and arguments attempting to get around the requirement to write the name "as it appears."
I mean it is clear to me, if someone says I have to write a name "as it appears" to get credit then I have to write it "as it appears" to get credit with a single exception permitted. The execption is I may write only the last name "as it appears" if I wish to do so and still get credit.
CLEARLY the point in contention is what does "as it appears" mean. For me, it CLEARLY means what it says.
Cheers!
Since the Dems ran such a weak candidate, they crossed over and voted for the Dem lite, Lisa the Liar. They were focused on keeping a Conservative out of office. Just look at the low numbers the Dem got.
Lisa the Liar got the RINO vote plus a large number of Dem, anti-Miller vote.
So..the RTKABA depends on a ‘well regulated militia’ ?
I am empathetic to those who intended to vote for Murkowski, but who were too stupid to understand how to write her name.
But, if we are just going to blow off laws because they are inconvenient, or because we discover they might not work they way we want them to, why have laws? And if we are not going to have laws, why have lawmakers?
Pretty much means she is out on her ass anyway.
The possiblity of "a well regulated militia" depends on the RTKABA.
Or,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There won't be a militia, well regulated or otherwise, without "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," a right that "shall not be infringed."
BTW - what was your point anyway?
yep...I’m an idiot
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.