Posted on 11/09/2010 6:12:41 AM PST by no dems
The count of the AK Senate Race Absentee Ballots takes place today. Currently, the total Write-in votes exceed Joe Miller's total vote count by 13,500 votes. There are 31,000 Absentee Ballots to be counted today. Absentee Ballots, which contain many military votes, normally go heavily Republican. Lisa Murkowski's name was not on the Absentee Ballot and the people who vote Absentee very seldom do the "Write-in" thing. If they do, it, many times, is not done correctly. So.......
If Joe Miller's lead, after the count of the Absentee Ballots, exceeds the 81,000 Write-in Ballots, which did not all go for Lisa anyway, turn out the lights; the party's over.
Official statement of Lt Gov Campbell here saying that the votes for Miller WILL be counted.
http://ltgov.alaska.gov/campbell/lieutenant-governor/full-press-release.html?pr=130
Not quite, it says if they are “properly cast”...
A write-in vote for a non write-in candidate would not be “properly cast”, so they could be playing word games.
And that statement has already been posted numerous times.
Hopefully he has finally made up his mind...
Not to worry, the place is crawling with Lawyers. Any attempt to cheat Joe will be handled post haste.
~~”Alaska law sides heavily with “voter intent”~~
Then why is Miller suing “to force exact spelling rule for write-in votes?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2624637/posts
Apparenlty Miller has filed a lawsuit according to this thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2624668/posts?
Alaska Law:
http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title15/Chapter15/Section360.htm
15.15.360.
(9) Write-in votes are not invalidated by writing in the name of a candidate whose name is printed on the ballot unless the election board determines, on the basis of other evidence, that the ballot was so marked for the purpose of identifying the ballot.
**********
That doesn’t mean what you think it means, to paraphrase a popular movie quote. :-)
I believe Lord, help my unbelief
What do you think he thinks it means? It seems pretty clear — if you write in the name of a person who is already on the ballot, it counts just as if the person had registered as a write-in.
Unless — they decide that the REASON you wrote in the name was to “mark” your ballot so that someone would know YOU were the one who voted the ballot. And they have to find OTHER evidence of ballot-marking in order to determine that.
I don’t agree that it looks like hypocricy. The state law clearly says that it must be exact.
Why do you think they made that law in the first place, in just that way?
Why didn’t they just make the law say “intention of the voter” when they made the law in Alaska?
Miller is asking someone to force Alaska to enforce its own law.
>>>Then why is Miller suing “to force exact spelling rule for write-in votes?”<<<
Hey, I voted for Miller... but the legal precedent in Alaska law clearly allows discretion from elections officials to accept misspellings and poor writing skills when inferring voter intent. Miller is suing to overturn that precedent. It’s a legal action taken by him to force the courts to, hopefully, decide in his favor.
I wish him luck. Sadly, it doesn’t look good for him at this point.
He is suing because (according to what I’ve read) the statute is very clear: write in votes must contain the name exactly as registered by the candidate, ‘with no exceptions’.
I may be mistaken here, but none of the legal precedents I’ve seen posted online about this have anything to do with misspelling, which is not consistent at all with the “no exceptions” part of the statute. X or check instead of filling in the oval? Yes. Misspelled name? No.
Any judge who thinks differently is legislating from the bench.
That's my understanding. I was asking someone who apparently disagreed since they wrote "Alaska law sides heavily with 'voter intent.'"
It's either one or the other.
Ping to redpoll’s informative post here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2624120/posts?page=151#151
Not to pat myself on the back or anything, but Miller’s lawyers are arguing exactly what I argued on ADN a few days ago: that misspellings could in fact be protest votes, and cannot be counted. The Native corps have extreme influence in the bush; and it’s possible that a fed up native might have misspelled the name in order to stick it to the man. Why not simply vote for Miller? In order to report back “yes I voted for Miller, just like you told me to.”
In addition, the law says no exceptions to the correct name. Voter intent? Not present in the statute - and this is in Federal court, not State.
ah sorry, poor editing!
Last post should say -
In order to report back “yes I voted for Murkowski, just like you told me to.”
Pat away. Sounds good to me. 8~)
Thank you!
Hah thanks :) My lawyer husband never seems to think much of my quasi legal arguments!
Looks like even with misspellings discarded Joe isn’t likely to overtake her, but I read on ADN that they are challenging about 10% of them - which would indeed make it very tight if the rest of the absentees and challenged ballots break for him.
I should just move on here, I know, but it’s awfully hard to concede defeat, even with the fat lady warming up!
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.