Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: saltus
Actually, it's decided on a couple of principles that involve "voter intent" that have been repeatedly rejected by the state legislature and the United States Supreme Court.

It also violates any construction of the Equal Protection requirement of the 14th amendment.

Alaskans will have to figure out how to get rid of their judges though. Not my job.

80 posted on 12/22/2010 6:54:46 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: muawiyah

The Court’s decision, as I read it, said the court had no choice based on state law and Federal Court decisions but that “voter intent as could be ascertained” had to be the controlling principle. In order to not disenfranchise any voter and in order to assure equal protection.

The decision spends several well-written pages addressing these topics, with many citations to laws and previous rulings, including Bush v. Gore. The decision strictly and properly ruled votes for Murky invalid when the oval was not filled in.

It is sad that Miller was smug and lazy in his campaign and bad that Murk won, but the blame lies with Miller, not the court.


90 posted on 12/22/2010 7:38:47 PM PST by saltus (God's Will be done)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson