December 11, 2010
— Gabriel Malor To recap: Joe Miller got an injunction from a federal court preventing the state Division of Elections from certifying Murkowski the winner of the election, but the federal court held that he would have to go to state court to resolve the questions about state law.
Yesterday evening, the state court judge ruled that Miller's spelling and fraud challenges are without merit.
Judge William Carey, in a ruling issued Friday, found that Mr. Miller had failed to demonstrate his claims that the results of the midterm elections in November were tainted by misconduct or fraud on the part of election officials. The judge also concluded that the outcome would have been the same even if the Republican candidate's charges had been true.
The state judge's decision is here (PDF). We've been over the exact-spelling rule challenge a couple times here at the HQ, so I'm not going to dig into that too deep. The judge's reasoning is not that great, especially when he's purporting to interpret the text of the statute, but he ultimately did what I expected which was apply the Alaska Supreme Court's "voter intent" rule.
The thing that interested me most about this lawsuit were Miller's late-pleaded fraud claims. Here's what the judge said about that:
Nowhere does Miller provide facts showing a genuine issue of
fraud or election official misfeasance. Instead, the majority of the problematic statements included in the affidavits are inadmissible hearsay, speculation, and occasional complaints of sarcasm expressed by DOE workers. Nothing rises to the level showing genuine material facts of fraud.
The judge seemed troubled that Miller apparently sat on these claims from November 17 through December 2 without trying to pursue them. In an ordinary lawsuit, two weeks is an extraordinarily short time to expect a party to take firm action. Miller had a couple things cutting against him: he filed the lawsuits, so the court will expect him to present allegations of genuine claims, and, as we've seen over and over election lawsuits are different.
The Division of Elections moved immediately to have the federal injunction dropped. The federal judge gave Miller until Monday to figure out what he wants to do. He could appeal in the Alaska courts and, ultimately, if he doesn't like what he gets there, take his lawsuit back to the federal courts on his constitutional claims.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
06:47 AM
| Comments (57)
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: schizuki at December 11, 2010 06:50 AM (M+lbD)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 11, 2010 06:51 AM (tJjm/)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 11, 2010 06:52 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: Vic at December 11, 2010 06:55 AM (e4sSD)
It's B.S.
Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at December 11, 2010 06:55 AM (jbCcb)
Posted by: USS Diversity at December 11, 2010 06:56 AM (RWtqz)
Bizarre idea: the voters handed her the victory.
Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at December 11, 2010 06:57 AM (2jIFR)
too stupid to realize that the Food Security bill, some carbon tax, et al, gets in. The
fact that the judge, actually ignored the changing of the rules, doesn't bode well.
Posted by: justin cord at December 11, 2010 06:58 AM (c0+w5)
You mean DADT and Amnesty?
/just to keep our atrocities straight
Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at December 11, 2010 06:58 AM (2jIFR)
It's B.S.
Posted by: Sukie Tawdry
No. Miller's lawsuit made state law claims involving the state statute and the Alaska Supreme Court's interpretation of state law. The CAIR Oklahoma lawsuit involved claims under the U.S. Constitution's First and Fourteenth Amendments. Hence, Miller's case goes to the state courts, while CAIR's claim can go to either the state or to the federal courts.
As I wrote in the post, if Miller wants to make a constitutional challenge to this decision, he still can do that in the federal court. It's not B.S.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 11, 2010 06:59 AM (XVaFd)
If the AK law says you have to spell the name correctly, and you don't get to bring a cheat sheet... and then Mucko's name is spelled incorrectly and they got to bring a cheat sheet...
I don't even know why this is an issue. Mucko's people rigged the game, it's obvious, and we need a fucking SCOTUS with fucking integrity to show Mucko the door for cheating.
Posted by: Truman North at December 11, 2010 07:02 AM (HLGCA)
Now I just hope the money fails.
Posted by: toby928™ at December 11, 2010 07:03 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: Mama AJ, master of the trick question at December 11, 2010 07:04 AM (XdlcF)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 11, 2010 07:08 AM (tJjm/)
They changed the election law without approval of the DOJ. If they had done this to support a Republican Holder would have been all over them like stink on shit.
Posted by: Vic at December 11, 2010 07:09 AM (e4sSD)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at December 11, 2010 07:12 AM (GNhXz)
Posted by: eman at December 11, 2010 07:16 AM (b1GWR)
I think it's too late for Joe to run for the other Senate seat. Once people have voted against you, your only hope is that the winner will do so badly that the voters will regret their pick. I don't see Meerkowshi doing that.
That would be like me switching from pulling for Jeff Gordon to Jimmy Johnson just to get on the winning side.
Posted by: toby928™ at December 11, 2010 07:16 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: toby928™ at December 11, 2010 07:20 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: eman at December 11, 2010 07:22 AM (b1GWR)
We need state election commissions that play by the rules, not courts getting involved in every friggin' election.
Moocowflopski "beat" Miller by something like 10K votes. I have to think the judge's ruling was influenced by that, and might have been different if the margin had been in the hundreds or low thousands.
Looks to me like AK voters wanted their pork-lovin' corrupt Senator, and Miller screwed the pooch. He has to carry some of the blame for this: he ran a shitty campaign, apparently believing Palin's endorsement would carry him to the win without any effort on his own part.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 11, 2010 07:32 AM (Ulu3i)
keep on pretending that elections are going to mean something, in the future
Posted by: justin cord at December 11, 2010 07:42 AM (c0+w5)
The time quickly approaches when Miller should take Fred Thompson's advice, let it go, live 'n learn, ready to fight another campaign all the better prepared for next time.
Posted by: maverick muse at December 11, 2010 07:55 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: MrScribbler©
...catch your breath and let him "lose" without any kicking the dead horse shit.
Posted by: maverick muse at December 11, 2010 07:57 AM (H+LJc)
Half full, half empty. The people voted for Murkowski.
Given another opportunity, against another non-incumbent, who is to say that this elective round is bound to repeat ad inifitum.
I'd give Miller another chance. Teh Fred has every confidence in Miller's political future, should Miller not persist beyond this point in his lawsuits that appear mean spirited, legitimacy aside.
Posted by: maverick muse at December 11, 2010 08:01 AM (H+LJc)
I'm wondering, if all the ballots that had bad penmanship or misspelled the Cow's name by a letter were disallowed, because the write-in was not "as it appears in the candidate filing", what would stop the Dems from upping the ante next time a conservative tries a write-in campaign and disallowing any write-in vote that is not in 12 point Times New Roman, since that is how the name appeared on the filing?
This kind of hair-splitting, nit-picking bullshit will come back and bite you in the ass every time. Trying to out-fraud the Democrats is like a tee-totaler challenging a hard core alcoholic to a drinking contest, it just ain't gonna work.
Posted by: gebrauchshund at December 11, 2010 08:17 AM (FLRN3)
Posted by: eman at December 11, 2010 08:17 AM (b1GWR)
Considering how difficult fraud claims are inherently to prove - remember we specifically try to make it hard to tie a ballot to an individual - this is a bit disturbing.
Overall the acceptance of fraud in the system is also a cause for concern. There is no particular difference between having your vote negated through some form of disenfranchisement, and having your vote negated by a fraudulent one, and yet as a country we treat the former as one of the greatest of crimes and the latter as an issue of no note.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 11, 2010 08:20 AM (bgcml)
What makes you think this ruling would stop them from doing that? The left has a "just win" attitude and could care less if they have to reverse their logical reasoning from one case to the next.
Remember how Gore's team was prepared to argue that popular vote counts don't matter when he thought he would win the electoral college while losing the popular vote?
Posted by: 18-1 at December 11, 2010 08:22 AM (bgcml)
Posted by: maverick muse at December 11, 2010 11:57 AM
All this babble about how Moocowflopski "stole" the election is the "kicking the dead horse shit."
It's time for Miller to decide that he'll run for AK's other Senate seat, or Governor, or mayor of Wasilla, or whatever the hell he wants to do and learn a lesson from this campaign: he has to work harder to win.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 11, 2010 08:25 AM (Ulu3i)
I'm no fan of Moocowflopski, but we also have to ensure that the candidate the people choose wins.
It's easy for us to say Miller was robbed, but maybe he wasn't. Even if the citizens pick a corrupt loser, that's their choice.
I don't know the truth, you don't know the truth, no one outside AK knows the truth.
If they feel cheated, it's up to them to force their election officials to abide by the law, and I'm not hearing much -- any -- outrage from Alaskans.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 11, 2010 08:29 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: eman at December 11, 2010 08:29 AM (b1GWR)
Oh, I knew he wouldn't win the election on this.
The major point is to get these precedents:
(1) Changing the rules of counting the ballots in the middle of the election
(2) Intent of the voter overrides the written law
overturned.
My understanding is that this judge's ruling is BS. For one thing, he shouldn't be deciding on issues like whether or not it would make a difference in the election.
I am sick and tired of judges ignoring the law as written and talking about justice and trying to be wise. We need civilian oversight of the legal profession.Posted by: AmishDude at December 11, 2010 08:40 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: kansas at December 11, 2010 08:49 AM (UQT0k)
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 11, 2010 12:29 PM (Ulu3i)
No matter how many votes Morcooski really got, it is clear that Miller did not get a majority of the votes (since it was a three way election). So I would be shocked frankly to the "the people of Alaska" express public outrage in some fashion.
Anyway, I certainly don't see anyway Miller pulls it out at this point.
My concern isn't even so much this election though, but the acceptance of small scale fraud that we see again and again.
Fraud allegations should be only made in a serious manner and treated as a BFD in the public sphere. They call into question the notion of representative government in general.
Add to that the hijinks we saw played in this election - repeated violations of the law on Morcokeski's behalf and the active involvement of the state bureaucracy in hleping to get her reelected and this election bodes serious ill for future elections.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 11, 2010 08:52 AM (bgcml)
What makes you think this ruling would stop them from doing that? The left has a "just win" attitude and could care less if they have to reverse their logical reasoning from one case to the next.
Agreed. The libs always push the ball in their direction. Always.
Besides, the law says proper spelling and that's what it means. Period.
It's supposed to be impossible to win a statewide write-in vote.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 11, 2010 08:57 AM (BvBKY)
We'll go through this every election cycle until the Republican starts giving a shit and does something about it.
Posted by: Soothsayer for RNC Chair at December 11, 2010 09:00 AM (/ebqR)
The Demtards teamed up with the idiots in the state. They know a Democrat can't win in Alaska, so they threw in with the princess.
Next time have your act together.
Posted by: Kristopher at December 11, 2010 09:34 AM (cxBLR)
Posted by: eman at December 11, 2010 09:37 AM (b1GWR)
Posted by: toby928™ not the czar's bitch at December 11, 2010 10:09 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: Erick Erickson at December 11, 2010 10:43 AM (3DIBw)
Posted by: logprof at December 11, 2010 10:56 AM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Jerry at December 11, 2010 11:03 AM (7Ahkq)
Alaska has one of these systems where judges are appointed by the governor, but the governor is only provided names by a pool provided by the bar association.
We're lucky if the list of judges is just partisan.
Most of the time the list is based on corruption at a variety of levels.
It violates the US Constitution, which entitles us to a republican form of government.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 11, 2010 12:31 PM (BvBKY)
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 11, 2010 11:32 AM (Ulu3i)
Miller even screwed up the Palin endorsement by telling Chris Wallace he didn't think Palin was qualified to be President. Then the emails leaked from either his campaign or the Palins revealed a tiff that was smoothed over. But he looked fake and opportunistic after the whole incident.
Coming right out and refusing to answer questions about yourself during a campaign is poor strategy. Miller seemed to talk the tea party walk more than he walked it himself, which is what ultimately cost him the election.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 11, 2010 01:09 PM (mHQ7T)
This is bullshit. The Kow won only because of libtard dems voting for her RINO entitled ass.
Posted by: TexBob at December 11, 2010 01:28 PM (7cXE7)
Miller could easily crush Begich in 2014. Unfortunately by keeping up this nonsense, he is destroying a lot of goodwill.
PS. Lose doesn't have two fucking o's in it, for fuck sake.
Posted by: Bob at December 11, 2010 04:01 PM (OtBXR)
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at December 11, 2010 04:01 PM (OtBXR)
"Now MooKow can vote for Dream Act and Amnesty."
Uh, if those were brought up in the lame duck session, she would have been able to vote for them even if she had lost to Miller.
Posted by: Bob at December 11, 2010 04:03 PM (OtBXR)
Such as not assuming you have won because you have the Republican nomination in Alaska. Such as hammering all of the corrupticrat Republicans in Alaska out of local and state office, and neutering the lot of them.
The poll workers who supported her need to be removed ... this requires Tea Party prosecutors and head vote counters. Keep pushing until we own the state, and corruptocrats like the princess can't get aid.
Posted by: Kristopher at December 11, 2010 10:32 PM (cxBLR)
Second problem: Too much out of state influence. Alaskans distrust outsiders. Miller is an outsider whose campaign appeared to be run by outsiders.
Third problem: His message was tailored to lower 48 issues; not to Alaska issues. Alaska is a public housing project / Indian reservation. Telling people that government welfare is unconstitutional might play in Peoria; but in the Mat Su Valley, people just think you're nuts.
Fourth problem: Trying to distance himself from Palin (no doubt on the advice of the aforesaid trolls) and doing it in such a clumsy way on national television turned off a large number of people. Sean Parnell is the politician Alaskans associate with Palin. It was Palin / Parnell that pulled off the hat trick of the century: wrenching the state government out of the hands of the oil companies while, at the same time, creating a business climate that allowed the oil companies to expand their operations, make more money, and hire more people. Parnell won reelection in a landslide (59%) and out polled the Murk machine by more than 50k votes.
Fifth problem: Crossing Sarah Palin on national television. Welcome to the tundra Joe.
Never entrust power to anyone not willing to surrender it.
Posted by: VADM Cuthbert Collingwood RN at December 12, 2010 02:11 AM (UL/HQ)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.4345 seconds, 185 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: apodoca at December 11, 2010 06:50 AM (JCHdz)