Miller v. Murkowski update

[Matthew Carberry]

I'm actually not too worried about this one, we'll have a decent vote on guns and such either way and I love getting your tax dollars sent to me to burn for warmth on cold winter nights, but the media coverage is odd.

They keep talking about how Murkowski is "gaining" as the write-in count progresses.  Actually she can't gain, only lose votes, which is what's happening.

All 92,528 write-in ballots have been presumed to be for Murkowski; with Miller only having around 80K after the polls closed he appears to be dreaming if he thinks he can win.

But not all 92,528 are proving to be actual votes for his opponent so this is going to come down to the court decision(s) on the challenges.

Actual counting of the write-ins is showing that only 89% are clearly unchallengeable for Murkowski, with maybe up to another 10% being challenged.  If that ratio holds, that's only a total of 82,350 or so unchallengeable votes.

As of last night Miller was at 81,195 votes.  That's a small margin of 1,155 "for sure" votes for Murkowski.  Further, there are still absentee and early ballots left to count, none with Murkowski's name on them (and I don't think those can even have write-ins), so a significant portion of those are likely to go to Miller; which means that margin of "for sure votes" may disappear or even invert in Miller's favor.

That means the Court rulings on the challenged write-in votes will probably decide the election, and Miller's case isn't bad.

[stevelyn]

The standard should be what the letter of the law says it is.

If they can't follow the law or try to make exceptions to it because they don't like the result, why should the rest of us have respect for any law on the books?

Just another reason to not have any respect for the Spoiled Princess and her govt handout dependent camp followers.

My source of irritation has more to to do with Murkowski's conduct than it does political positions most of which I can actually live with.

[sumpnz]

Just because of the sore loser nature of her write in bid I hope Miller take it.  He seems like a bit of an arrogant used-car salesman in a way, but I like his "return power to the state" message.

Had Murky been a grown up about it, made a fortune lobbying or whatever, and waited until 2014 to run againt Begich I'd have had a ton more respect for her.

[HankB]

According to a news commentator I saw last night, Alaska's law requires that the name of a write-in candidate be written exactly as shown on the list of write-in candidates, but officials were going to use a "voter intent" strategy. So Murkowski = Merkowsky =Mercaoskee = M%r#0W@k1, etc. They even had one official (from the Murkowski camp, of course) saying that "Nobody should be disenfranchised because of their handwriting."

Miller sued to have the law apply as written, but a court threw that out. So it seems that the new standard isn't compliance with what the law actually says, but being sort of close to what lawmakers may have meant. 

[GigaBuist]

... and another election decided by people too frakking dumb to fill out a ballot properly.

Awesome.

[roo_ster]

... and another election decided by people too frakking dumb to fill out a ballot properly.

Awesome.

We seem destined to be ruled by the lowest quintile of voters, intelligence-wise.

That sounds like a great case to keep out dumb *expletive deleted*ss non-English speaking immigrants who are illiterate in both English and their native tongue.

[MicroBalrog]

It is possible that a voter intent strategy would be fairer - there are, after all, people medically incapable of spelling right.

That said, this isn't the law.

[grampster]

The question isn't really about dumb people who can't spell.  The real question is why isn't the court following the law?  We are supposed to be a society of laws, ergo the playing field is level for all.  If you are too dumb to be able to spell, tough.  Last time I looked, 12 grades of school is free.  No excuse for not being able to read or write.  You can also ask for help at the polls.

[Tallpine]

So is it just politicians who don't have to follow laws that they don't like ? 

[Matthew Carberry]

The Judge didn't throw it out, he refused to issue an injunction as the harm was not irreperable.

They punted until the results are in.  If it comes down to the contested ballots instead of a clear win for Murkowski then the Miller camp can decide to move forward.

[Ron]

We sure don't want the obvious intent of the voters to rule the day if it means a win for a RINO.

Better our guy wins, to heck with the intent of the voters.

[Matthew Carberry]

Ron,

If we don't like the law as written, we should go to the trouble of changing it, not just pretend it means something it doesn't because we like that interpretation better.

Rule of law not rule of man.

[StopTheGrays]

Ron,

If we don't like the law as written, we should go to the trouble of changing it, not just pretend it means something it doesn't because we like that interpretation better.

Rule of law not rule of man.

As noted earlier in this thread:

Alaska's law requires that the name of a write-in candidate be written exactly as shown on the list of write-in candidates, but officials were going to use a "voter intent" strategy.

That is the law. How should it be changed? Add "...and we mean it."? 

[Matthew Carberry]

If we the voters want "voter intent" to be considered we should change the text of the controlling statute to reference "voter intent" and define the standards for how that intent is to be judged.

Personally I think that if you want to vote for a write-in the burden is on you to learn to spell that person's name correctly and learn to print clearly in block letters.  Write a crib note and take it into the booth with you if necessary and simply copy it.

Not sure why we have to pander to the lazy or non-documentably medically incompetent.

[MicroBalrog]

Not sure why we have to pander to the lazy or non-documentably medically incompetent.

What about the documentally medically incompetent?

[Brad Johnson]

Personally I think that if you want to vote for a write-in the burden is on you to learn to spell that person's name correctly and learn to print clearly in block letters.  Write a crib note and take it into the booth with you if necessary and simply copy it.

Wurd.

Brad

[dogmush]

My parents were down here visiting from Eagle River this week (I'm a transplanted Alaskan) and my mother (being a staunch Lifelaong Democrat) and I got into several spirited discusions on this campaign.  There were so many news pundits with different ideas on what the law says that I had to break out my Google-Fu and look.

As such, I can say that:

Alaska's law requires that the name of a write-in candidate be written exactly as shown on the list of write-in candidates

No, It doesn't.

AK Statutes Sec 15.15.360 (10) says:

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.

And that's all I can find on the subject. (for those interested (1) of that subsection covers what way's you can fill in the oval)

My mom swears up and down, but can't find, that there's a Division of Elections reg that mentions the term "Voter's Intent".  Apparently those regs have already hit the court once this election over whether or not there could be posted a list of approved write-in candidates. :shrug

As a guy that really has no dog in this race anymore, I read that law and note that it doesn't use the word "exactly" or mention an approved list of candidates.  And that's probably reasonable.  After all, Sen Murkowski's name is actually Lisa Ann Murkowski, and no-one expects that written in. Just as if some drunk dude from Tok scrawled "That one chick we already got" I wouldn't expect that to count.  There's got to be a middle ground.

I hate to drag that hard to find "Reasonable Person" over from all the SD shootings, but it seems to me in the abscense of either of the words "intent" or "exactly" in the statute that might be a good standard to apply. That would kinda be the court's role in government, wouldn't it?

Also, as someone with really bad handwriting, I'd hate to disenfranchise a voter because a poll worker couldn't make out every little cross and dot.  

[Perd Hapley]

Also, as someone with really bad handwriting, I'd hate to disenfranchise a voter because a poll worker couldn't make out every little cross and dot. disenfranchisement would be my own durn fault.

Fixed that for you. Since my wife tends to show up late to everything, I would hate to disenfranchise those who show up to the polls five minutes after close.  

[Matthew Carberry]

What about the documentally medically incompetent?

They should be in a home and their guardians should vote their proxy.

[Matthew Carberry]

Dogmush,

Scroll down to number (a)11 and then (b).

Alaska Stat. § 15.15.360

(a)(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.


The statute is pretty clear that the name must be exactly as declared by the candidate and there isn't any wiggle room to interpret it more widely.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/15/15.15./15.15.360.

[MicroBalrog]

They should be in a home and their guardians should vote their proxy.

Think of dyslexics. There are people who are fully intellectually competent to understand the issues, and yet can't spell.

[Brad Johnson]

Dogmush,

Scroll down to number (a)11 and then (b).

The statute is pretty clear that the name must be exactly as registered by the candidate and there isn't any wiggle room to interpret it more widely.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/15/15.15./15.15.360.

I would think that there would be legal precedent for restrictions on things like exact spelling.  Invalidating someone's vote simply because they can't spell (or even write) would seem to fall under the purview of anti-discrimination law.

Brad

[Matthew Carberry]

Think of dyslexics. There are people who are fully intellectually competent to understand the issues, and yet can't spell.

Right, kept in a home, and if it's genetic, probably forbidden to breed.  

Seriously though, those would be among the people who should get consideration for misspelling since they can't even necessarily "monkey see, monkey do" off of a crib sheet.

[Matthew Carberry]

I would think that there would be legal precedent for restrictions on things like exact spelling.  Invalidating someone's vote simply because they couldn't spell or even write would seem to fall under the purview of anti-discrimination law.

Brad

If the news is reporting correctly there are some "voter's intent" case law precedents but those didn't involve write-in ballots, just marks on scan-tron.

Since you aren't forbidden from cutting out an article in the paper with the name spelled correctly, or printing something online for free at the library, or having someone who can spell write the name for you, and carrying that crib note into the voting booth; I have a bit of a problem with the "but, but, spelling is hard" argument.  It's your vote dammit, people died so you could have it, put a little effort in or don't do it at all.

[Tallpine]

Since we're getting into voter intent, when I voted for McCain/Palin, I was actually voting for Palin/whoever-she-appoints-to-serve-out-the-VP-term