Posted on 11/09/2010 8:19:32 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
I respectfully disagree, Mike. The law needs to be followed. Someone posted the Alaskan statute upthread, and there's no wiggle room for misspellings.
A write-in vote has to be written in exactly as spelled on the candidate's state application for it to count. No wiggle. If by the law, it can't count, then throw it out.
Alaska Statutes - Section 15.15.360.: Rules for counting ballots.
(a) The election board shall count ballots according to the following rules:
(1) A voter may mark a ballot only by filling in, making “X” marks, diagonal, horizontal, or vertical marks, solid marks, stars, circles, asterisks, checks, or plus signs that are clearly spaced in the oval opposite the name of the candidate, proposition, or question that the voter desires to designate.
(2) A failure to properly mark a ballot as to one or more candidates does not itself invalidate the entire ballot.
(3) If a voter marks fewer names than there are persons to be elected to the office, a vote shall be counted for each candidate properly marked.
(4) If a voter marks more names than there are persons to be elected to the office, the votes for candidates for that office may not be counted.
(5) The mark specified in (1) of this subsection shall be counted only if it is substantially inside the oval provided, or touching the oval so as to indicate clearly that the voter intended the particular oval to be designated.
(6) Improper marks on the ballot may not be counted and do not invalidate marks for candidates properly made.
(7) An erasure or correction invalidates only that section of the ballot in which it appears.
(8) A vote marked for the candidate for President or Vice-President of the United States is considered and counted as a vote for the election of the presidential electors.
(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.
(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate’s name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate’s name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.
(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.
(12) If the write-in vote is for governor and lieutenant governor, the vote shall be counted if the oval is filled in and the names, as they appear on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor or the last names of the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, or the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate for governor or the last name of the candidate for governor is written in the space provided.
(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.
Note the last paragraph.
Drop dead. Go find another hobby.
You are correct on all counts.
This poster has been trolling for Murky since before the primary. Never mind that Murky LOST.
He loves the pork she brings to the state.
Check his forum posts.
What a pant load. Your statement is asinine at best, or just plain ignorant at worst. It is a FEDERAL ELECTION, therefore the correct venue is the Federal Court system. State Rights do not extend to the Fedrool Ballot box... when the State is defying it's own rules.
Your animus to Miller is duly noted. What you do not note is why you wish to denigrate him? Please enlighten us as to why you feel it necessary to target him...
You’re right. I smell troll!
IBTZ
“His actions can only leave us wondering what he believes, State vs Federal.”
Alaska has a long-established election law - the Federal govt didn’t have anything to do with the enacting of Alaska election law, so states rights are respected there.
But if a state wants slavery, we know Federal will get involved, as it should, regardless of states rights. The same should apply when activist judges, etc., are aiding a candidate in challenging established election law during an election. Remember the activist judges in Florida? They kept subverting election law in favor of the candidate they liked until the Supreme Court slapped them down.
As far as I can tell, Miller has gone to court to ensure the state law of Alaska is upheld, because the other candidate is trying to subvert the law and is apparently getting help with some folks in high places.
“Additionally, buy challenging voter intent he his attempting to disenfranchise voters that have trouble with English, are elderly or need help.”
The assumption in your statement is that those who have trouble with English, elderly, or otherwise need help, voted for Murkowski. The problem there is that your assumption also brings the possibility of disenfranchising voters who voted for the dem, those who voted for any number of others on the list, those who registered a protest vote because they didn’t like anybody, and those who may have voted for Miller.
tongass has been mightily annoying Freepers for weeks. Maybe his son or daughter is a Murkowski staffer and might be out of a job
A Republican Form of Government is one governed by law, not judicial fiat.
The Murkowski Machine in Alaska will stop at nothing to get its way.
Rats have their pet judges do it whenever they need to steal an election.
I accidentally wrote in Eyjafjallajokull.
Pretty much puts the 'voters intent' crap to rest doesn't it?
Miller is suing to have EXISTING STATE LAW enforced.
Your response is absolute bull stuff, FRiend.
Bull. You are absolutely lying here.
The election of a United States Senator is required under the United States Constitution to be conducted under predetermined rules, enforced fairly. The exact rules are allowed to be set by the state itself.
Alaska has these rules written down, and the state officials are endeavoring to change the rules on the fly to benefit their favored candidate. By doing so, they violate the few federal laws and rules that apply.
You need to review your understanding of "states' rights". The tenth amendment reserves those things not specifically allocated to the federal government to the states. BUT THE CONSTITUTION SPELLS OUT THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE ELECTION RULES PREDETERMINED.
You are peddling a lie here.
Well, it looks like the Courts are saying that the statute doesn’t matter that intent of the voter is to be used. So, can the legislature, in the next session [it wouldn’t count now] ammend it to say that they CANNOT take into account intent?
Here’s the relevant statutory language for counting write-ins in Alaska (AK 15.15.360):
(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate’s name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate’s name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.
(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided....
(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.
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.