1 My initial reaction is to side with Miller over Murcokewhore. But given that, by definition, only the stupid voters in Alaska voted for her, I think they're going to have to allow some leeway.

2 Homest question... How does the US Constitution exactly protect the Right to vote and have your vote counted?

3 What's the purpose of having election rules if they are subject to change after the fact?

4 Gabriel wrote:

...but the legislature cannot by statute override the U.S. Constitution, which protects, among other things, the right to vote and to have your vote counted.

That does not exist in the United States Constitution...sorry to say

Carson Wales

5 What about the issue that the wristbands given out at a native gathering by the Murkuntski campaign were illegal gifts?

6 BS the Constitution has long delegated voting standards to the States. It has only been more recently that the federal courts have got into the picture interfering with that in opposition to the Constitution.

In any case, the AK law is clear the name must be spelled as it is written on the absentee form.

But given the AK courts so far and the fact that AK is part of the most lying liberal court system in the country (9th district) I fully expect Miller to get screwed unless he takes it all the way to the Supremes. And even then unless Kennedy is mad a the liberals this time he will still get screwed.

7

I wonder how big an issue this is anyway. How many actual misspelled write-ins?

I forget - did they end up having written lists of write-in candidates posted at polling stations on election day?

8 Let's face it: if Miller is reduced to trying to win by saying a voter we know perfectly well wanted to vote for Murky but couldn't remember the exact spelling of her murky name... It's over. Miller needs to graciously concede defeat, and get on his with life. And guy... get a shave. That scraggly look alone might have cost you the election!

9 If the voters were advised before they entered the booth that when writing in a candidate they must spell the name correctly, and if voters were given a list of write-in candidates whose names were correctly spelled, then I have no sympathy - even if a vote was cast for "Jo Miller."  These voters have not been disenfranchised - they disenfranchised themselves. 

We have a right to expect some minimal level of competence from the electorate.  Copying a name from a list correctly seems to be a very low bar to hurdle.

10 In more important news, There's a Communist Living in the White House! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWi182CMJY8

11 With all due respect, I think Billy S had it right many moons ago:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'"

12

The Constitution establishes the right to vote, but it also gives the States the power to set the rules of how their representatives will be elected.

 

Alaska established the rules for their election.  It is the law.  They should follow the rules and law as it is written and not make up shit as they go along, otherwise they would be no better than some liberal enclave.  If you donÂ’t want to conduct elections according to the crystal clear rules established, why bother to write them in the first place? 

 

Christ.  First Ace with the COD vendetta and now Gabriel wanting to throw out the rules and have an interpretive dance showing how the owls and polar bears would be sad if every misspelling moron doesnÂ’t get his vote counted.

13 I think 'disenfranchised' is challenging 'pornography' for it's fluctuating standard.

It strikes me that if YOU fuck up your vote, you've 'disenfranchised' your own damn self.

Or are the people who vote for 'Mickey Mouse' disenfranchised when their vote is thrown out?

14 The Alaska legislature may have spoken, but the legislature cannot by statute override the U.S. Constitution, which protects, among other things, the right to vote and to have your vote counted.

There is no such thing, Gabe.  The Constitution says only that the act of voting may not be denied people on the basis of race.  But nowhere does it say that an absolute right of American citizens to vote exists in the first place, and it certainly doesn't say you have a right for your vote to be counted.

15 Maybe Lizzy Marcowsky should have changed her name to "X" - then maybe her voters would have been able to spell it right. Maybe.

16 What has failed to be discussed much is how election law was already violated when the poll workers provided Jabrowskis name to the voters in a list of write ins which has never been done before in the states history. A judge ruled and said they should do that which has never been done before. This was a blatant violation of the law, but judges really don't care about the law these days. They only care about liberalism and Jabrowski fits the mold!

17 I weep for my state.

18 Well, the liberals read shit into the constitution all the time to fit their agenda.  Where the Constitution only states that votes will be had to elect those to congress and the presidency and all, then guarantees that race, creed, color, sex, etc. will not be discriminated against in the voting booths doesn't fit the fucking agenda, the piss on it.  Murk......fuck off....you lost.  Go home and live off daddy's money.  The rule is the rule. 

19

If the write-in includes a little heart above the "i" in "Muklukski," does it still count? 

I'm with the Czech on this one--assuming that there's an intent to vote to keep dynastic succession in place, then Miller's got to move on and get ready to take on Don Young in 2012. 

20 I agree, I expect that even if the law is applied as it is written (exact spelling required) a suit will overturn the law. Requiring exact spelling will almost certainly incur the wrath of a liberal federal judge who will agree with the argument that said requirement disenfranchises Murkowski supporters.

21 I think the fact that Miller is reduced to arguing that misspellings of her name might be protests and therefore shouldn't count is pretty weak tea.

This scrunt is going to pull it off. The fact that the integrity of Alaska's election is now shot apparently a price Princess is willing to pay to keep her gig.

If that's what these idiots want, they deserve the bitch.

Now DeMint or someone in the House needs to make sure she doesn't get a penny of money for the fuckers.

22 The 26th Amendment:

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You can vote at 18.  You have the right defined by the constitution to vote at 18.

23 But, there's nothing that says that vote has to be counted.

24 When I vote I take my marked up Voter's Guide with me. If people wanted to write-in Mckoursky's name correctly all they had to do was take a note into the booth with them so they could spell it right. I assume you can do that in AK. I side with what the law says - not on voter intent. The only determination for an acceptable write-in would be on sloppy handwriting which does provide gray area - where do you draw the line?

25 Well, if the voters' intentions count for Murky, shouldn't they count for Miller, too? Yet, the State of Alaska intends to toss out any write in votes for Miller.

26 What if a voter writes "Lisa Madcowski"? What was the voter's intent? A misspelling of a candidate's name could be a sign of degradation. There is no excuse. They got their precious list of candidates in the voting booths in direct contravention of Alaska law. No excuse. The voter had the chance to spell it perfectly. There are plenty of ways to get on the ballot. The write-in is hard, on purpose. Sleeza had many ways of getting on the ballot, either on the GOP line or on another party's. It is called the sore loser law for a reason. This elastic "will of the voter" crap is how we got Franken. The will of the voter CANNOT be devined. It doesnt work on the SAT and it doesn't work here. If you can't follow the instructions, your vote doesn't count. No know-it-all judge and lawyer is going to guess what you meant after the fact. There will be enough wrangling over handwriting. If they clearly spelled it wrong, it doesn't count.

27

"Joe Miller" (alternate spelling: "Liz Murkowskey")

"Joe Miller" (alternate spelling: "L Mucowsky")

How are you supposed to determine "voter intent" when all you have is a jumble of letters written (poorly) inside a box?

Hopefully, they will do a statewide recount with a single standard and avoid the "equal protection" violation that caused the outcome in Bush v. Gore.

 

 

28 This is why so many people view lawyers as slimy fucks.

Lawyers and judges (who are themselves lawyers) manage to circumvent crystal clear laws with clear legislature intent and spin decisions out of thin air to reach whatever conclusion they want.

29 If Miller's name is in the write in spot and the circle filled it will be counted for him.

30 If we 'grant' the premise then where do we start?

Can foreigners vote?  Illegal aliens?  People under 18?  Felons?  People who neglected to register? Does a pregnant mother get a number of votes 1 for her and 1 for each of the babies?

Also can we cross party primary restrictions now (In California and many states you can ONLY vote in your parties primary).  Votes run by the state, but the parties can limit who can vote in their primary.

Does this mean that we have to keep the polls open forever as the date of voting is a state/federal limitation on your vote counting.

Most of those are DIRECT violations of your premise, and a couple are 'stretches' but you could argue it.

'Can of worms' if we grant the premise.

31
If you cannot spell,  then go to hell.

32 Simple rebuttal:

Consider the following candidates:
Alex Gonzales
Alex Gonzalez

I write in "Alex Gonsales"
Who did I intend to vote for? Am I dyslexic and mean to vote for Gonzalez? Or did I get the ending 's' right and miss the middle 'z'?

Another question: Is there a 'Lisa Murkowsky' living in Alaska or somewhere else in the US? If so, and I write in 'Lisa Murkowsky', and you count my vote for 'Lisa Murkowski' then you have indeed disenfranchised my vote.

Spelling is important. If you can't be bothered to spell a name correctly, then your vote shouldn't count because you failed to correctly fill out the ballot. In that case, the voter disenfranchised themselves.

I think you're wrong on this one, Gabe.

33 Not a lawyer and I defer to Counsellor Malor's legal analysis, but I am frustrated with the entire legal argument.  Where is the consideration of the responsibility of the voter?  If you're going to write-in someone else on a printed ballot, then the responsibility is shared by the voter and the counter.  Assuming there are no other candidates with the initials L and M, is any permutation that starts with an L for the first name and an M for the last name considered a vote for Murkowski?  How much sloppiness is allowed?  How many letters off can you be and still get your vote counted?

I get the Constitutional issue of the right to vote and the right to have your vote counted.  Amidst this discussion of the rights of the poor helpless voter is the responsibility of the voter to fill out the damn form correctly.  The people in Palm Beach County who tried to vote for Gore and hit Buchanan, the people who left "dimpled chads" or "hanging chads" -- yeah, they're stupid and they failed.  Sorry.  You have failed in your responsibility as a voter, to make a clear choice therefore we will not be counting your vote anymore than if you wrote "Al Gore" on a box-top with a check mark beside it and mailed it in as an early ballot.

There is a way to vote, in the State of Alaska there are rules regarding the voting.  If you want to deviate from the choices made by the political parties and write in someone else to better suit your views, then follow the rules.  They were allowed to see a sheet with the names, if they cannot copy the name letter-for-letter and get is spelled correctly on the ballot, then according to the rules their vote does not count.  Period.

At least, that's the way it should be.  The legal system (it's not a justice system) that keeps it from being so is wrong.

34 29 - I thought that Joe Miller was not valid as a write in.  I do not think he was on the list.

35 The fact that the integrity of Alaska's election is now shot apparently a price Princess is willing to pay to keep her gig.

There is no price she wasn't willing to pay. Especially since it's being paid with other people's money.

36 If you go to the voting station and they've run out of ballots, you've been disenfranchised.

If you go to the voting station and they lose your ballot after you've voted, you've been disenfranchised.

If you arrive at the voting station at 7:30, but the polls closed at 7:00, you have not been disenfranchised.

And if you cannot correctly copy letters of a name from a list onto a write-in ballot, after having been told that your vote will not count unless you do, you have not been disenfranchised.

37 @31: let's not take positions we would oppose if it was the conservative Republican that was the write in candidate. We might rue the day.

38 Unfortunately, as asinine as the law is, he's right about the Alaskan voter laws and the misspelled votes should be thrown out. NOt that they will be, but that's how it is.

39

The Alaska legislature may have spoken, but the legislature cannot by statute override the U.S. Constitution, which protects, among other things, the right to vote and to have your vote counted.

I'm sorry Gabe, but are you sure that's not a part of international maritime law, and not the Constitution?

Also its bullshit, they aren't having their votes discounted.  They are being counted.  And if they voted for Liza Murkowsky, then that is a vote for Liza Murkowsky.  If you say that is actually a vote for Lisa Murkowski, its garbage.

40 When I volunteered to count ballots in the great state of Maine, write-in ballots HAD to have the full name AND the municipality of the write-in candidate. Many votes were thrown away - usually missing municipality, but awful spelling also had its victims.

This was not just a one-person decision. One Democrat and one Republican had to agree. And still, we threw out many votes. (and this is not even counting people who could not fill in a proper vote that the scanner machine could not read)

You have a right to vote. You don't have a right to have your ridiculous vote counted.

41 35 The fact that the integrity of Alaska's election is now shot apparently a price Princess is willing to pay to keep her gig. Quite honestly, I think its the integrity of the Alaskan PEOPLE that is shot. So much for the last American pioneers on the last frontier. They turned out to be nothing but welfare moochers.

42

Miller is also in a race with time here. Once there is any indication that the incumbent (Liza M.) is the winner (in any count), he has lost his case! This is a hard lesson learned from the 2000 and 2008 elections: public opinion matters!

Once there is an "official" count, if that count shows either candidate ahead, the smart move is to immediately hold a press conference to declare yourself the "winner" and your opponent a "sore loser" for not accepting the will of the voters. Joe miller must do whatever he can to avoid giving an opportunity for Lisa Murkowski to do this. Unfortunately, he must act now (with this lawsuit)!

43

Evidently when the Lt. Governer said they wouldn't be counted he hadn't read the law and was talking out of his ass. Which he seems to do quite a bit.

http://tinyurl.com/2cle4k4

44 I can agree with you that they would allow some leeway, however, we've fought this battle time and time again with regard to petition drives for referendums, getting your name on the ballot, etc. Are election staff really trained to be handwriting experts? I don't think so. But it seems the courts in my state seem to side with the election staff in determining a match. If it's not exact, throw them out. It's the law. If I sign a form to help someone get on the ballot, they darn sure make sure I spell my own name right and have the exact address. No exceptions.

45 I think that, even if the law were not clear, the fact that people had a list of Write-Ins with her name spelled on it at the polling place invalidates any attempt to determine voter intent from misspelling. When her name is right there for you to copy down, and you don't copy it exactly, then it is just as likely you were actually voting for someone else. Therefore, any ballot with a misspelling is thus too unclear to count at all because you have no way to know who that person intended to vote for.

46 37 @31: let's not take positions we would oppose if it was the conservative Republican that was the write in candidate. We might rue the day.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 10, 2010 05:35 PM (tJjm/)

If there is election law stating that the write-in candidate must have the name spelled correctly in order for it to count, then I don't care if the only option other than the conservative write-in candidate is a communist winning the spot.  Those are the rules of the election and we need to abide by them, even if we don't like them.  Trying to change the rules after the fact is a corrupt method.

47 But what if I truly meant to vote for a Lisa Murkowsky, whether as a joke or not.  If this automatically counts for Murkowski, you are basically saying I cannot vote for who I want to.

48

Like coffee, enfranchisement is for closers!

49

"So much for the last American pioneers on the last frontier. They turned out to be nothing but welfare moochers."

My thoughts exactly CC. I just hope when she gets back to Washington the Republicans strip her of every bit of "clout" she might have.She should get nothing less that a toilet brush, a can of comet and a get to work pat on the back. I hope the people that voted for her get less than shit from the fed.

50

Miller is fucked.  Thanks again, RNC, you double-crossing fuckwads.  And you too, Mitch McConnell.  I'm hoping the newly elected conservatives make you completely irrelevent.

51 If the AK law is such a burden, why wasn't it challenged before the election?

52

ItÂ’s a formalistic approach, to be sure. But a degree of formalism is absolutely essential to making law work.

Patterico's rule is a slap in the face to Polish write-in candidates, who would have no freakin' chance of ever getting their voters to spell their names correctly.

53 If the AK law is such a burden, why wasn't it challenged before the election?

Probably because in past elections the percentage of write-in votes was comparatively insignificant and would not change the result.

54

I gave to Joe Miller after the election hoping he would fight this election to the bitter end, by any means. Glad he's doing that.

55 Don't forget prior to the election a 'sheet' was printed out for write-ins.

No excuses for not complying with the current voting laws.  (Even if the sheet wasn't out there, there is STILL no excuse).

Making this change post-facto is DEFINATELY a violation of the constutition, you cannot make laws ex-post-facto.  Unlike the argument that the you have a right to vote and your vote must count.....   The only argument you have there is equal protection, but given that there are actual laws on the books... if you enforce them (without 'rewriting them') then you are complying with the constitution, it would only be a violation of equal protection IF you exempted 'groups' from laws on the books.

So you have two constitutional (and some state) laws broken IF you 'interpret' (given existing AK state election laws) and ZERO if you start to intrepret.

May even be 3 constitutional issues given 'rights' are granted to the states unless explicitly laid out in the constitution (or BoR).

Not that reality is going to make a difference, we've done this sort of thing on all sorts of issues over and over.

56 Go to the mattresses, Joe. Enough of this "gracious loser" bullshit. The same thing should be going on in CT and NV, among iother places.

57 Go to the mattresses, Joe. Enough of this "gracious loser" bullshit. The same thing should be going on in CT and NV, among iother places.

Agreed. Norm Coleman being a gracious loser in the face of massive ACORN vote fraud is how this country was cursed with Senator Al Franken.

58 As others have remarked above, this kind of thing is why many people reflexively hate lawyers (and I say that as one who does not reflexively hate lawyers); i.e., the interpretation of a matter so minutely and with such legalistic precision that a patently false conclusion is reached.

I suppose it is defensible, at least ethically, when done to advance one's side in a legal matter. But with all due respect, Gabe, it appears here that you are doing it to advance the other side.

We are in a pitched battle for the soul of America, Gabe, and you have to pick one side or the other. You know, or you should know, that a whole raft of unfair advantages have been thrown Muklukski's way by her father's political machine; thus, I feel that you should consider favorable disposition of Miller's suit as merely a partial redress of these grievances.

59 RE: #56  if you DON'T 'interpret' intent.

Plus how do you KNOW intent?

60 both the "L" and the "M" must be capitalized of course and it goes without saying that both "I"s must be dotted

61 let's not take positions we would oppose if it was the conservative Republican that was the write in candidate. We might rue the day. Posted by: CoolCzech at November 10, 2010 05:35 PM

This. It's the most important factor.

Somehow, someone has to devise state election laws that apply equally to all. They can -- and should -- be simple and easy to enforce.

If the citizens of a given state want to be able to count votes written for Mr Myxyzptlk as votes for Lisa Moocowflopski, so be it. But at the same time, those rules should not be arbitrarily changed to suit a particular candidate.

62 In addition, enough with this selective concern about the "intent of the voter."  Wasn't it the intent of the Republican voters in the primary that Miller be the one and only Republican candidate for the office?

63

My thoughts exactly CC. I just hope when she gets back to Washington the Republicans strip her of every bit of "clout" she might have.She should get nothing less that a toilet brush, a can of comet and a get to work pat on the back. I hope the people that voted for her get less than shit from the fed.

Posted by: Bosk at November 10, 2010 05:43 PM (pUO5u)

I doubt if they will.  Guarrantee she's told them if they try that she'll go and vote with the Democrats.  And McConnell is too much of a fucking pussy to do that.  And if her vote was the vote to determine who controlled the Senate I'd agree.  But its not so I wish they would say "fuck you coke head"  and let her go crawling to the Dems begging for whatever scraps they'd offer her.  Because doing so would also kill any incentive Dems would have to offer her any real positions.  Takes away her power and leverage.  But like I said: McConnell, Fucking pussy.

64 Miller is right and the idiocy of charging that anyone needs to "determine intent" in the electoral returns from retards who can't follow simple directions has to finally be done away with.  I don't know who ever started that mind-blowing silliness, but it is really just too much.  Enough.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 10, 2010 05:48 PM (G/MYk)

It's called dumbing down the vote.  Goes with the public school system.

And Gabe, the military's right to vote and have their vote counted is stomped on repeatedly.

65 #60 - hope you're joking

The law states spelled exactly, not that your penmanship is correct or punctuation.

66

Somehow, someone has to devise state election laws that apply equally to all. They can -- and should -- be simple and easy to enforce.

If the citizens of a given state want to be able to count votes written for Mr Myxyzptlk as votes for Lisa Moocowflopski, so be it. But at the same time, those rules should not be arbitrarily changed to suit a particular candidate.

Posted by: MrScribbler at November 10, 2010 05:49 PM (Ulu3i)

If you write the name backwards, your ballot disappears.

67

Gabe,

Where exactly does the Constitution say this: "...the legislature cannot by statute override the U.S. Constitution, which protects, among other things, the right to vote and to have your vote counted."

The Constitution says very little about voting, and nothing I can find defending sloppy write-in's. The legislature is supreme in this instance - and they have established a standard prior to the election that everyone was aware of. Indeed, much of Murkowski's advertising was directed to teaching people how to spell her name.

For her to now switch gears and demand a looser standard after the fact is preposterous.

68

Somehow, someone has to devise state election laws that apply equally to all. They can -- and should -- be simple and easy to enforce.

If the citizens of a given state want to be able to count votes written for Mr Myxyzptlk as votes for Lisa Moocowflopski, so be it. But at the same time, those rules should not be arbitrarily changed to suit a particular candidate.

Posted by: MrScribbler at November 10, 2010 05:49 PM (Ulu3i)

If you write the name backwards, your ballot disappears.

Posted by: buzzion at November 10, 2010 05:53 PM (oVQFe)

I think that happens if you vote for conservatives anyway.  (well in some states)

69

If you write the name backwards, your ballot disappears.

Posted by: buzzion at November 10, 2010 05:53 PM

Alaskans were warned that Moocowflopski was pure Kryptonite....

70 That's some bullshit reasoning there by Gabe.... A voter fucking things up for him/herself is not disenfranchisement, and yes, that includes misspellings.

71

They will argue that it is equal to a poll-test and therefore unconstitutional. Cokewhoreski, I hate you.

72 I do have to admit, Gabe is sounding rather democrat today.

73 Wasn't she allowed to hand out wrist bracelets and buttons with her name on it anyway? So, theoretically, there should be no misspelled names unless someone wanted to cast a protest vote and write in Lunch MacAndCheese, then it should't count.

74
But ... but ... but the exact spelling rule discriminates against Polish Americans!

Wait, Polacks are white. OK, fuck 'em.

75

So, theoretically, there should be no misspelled names unless someone wanted to cast a protest vote and write in Lunch MacAndCheese, then it should't count.

"Lunch MacAndCheese" was obviously meant to refer to Lisa Murkowski.

Murkowski +1

76 76
But ... but ... but the exact spelling rule discriminates against Polish Americans!

Wait, Polacks are white. OK, fuck 'em.

Posted by: Typical Liberal Moonbat at November 10, 2010 06:03 PM (VrNoa)

And if they are democrats they'd probably have changed their names.  Ain't that right mr. john liebowitz?

77

The Alaska legislature may have spoken, but the legislature cannot by statute override the U.S. Constitution, which protects, among other things, the right to vote and to have your vote counted.

It's not in there.

Maybe Amendments 14, 19, 24 and 26 do address questions of who may not be denied a vote, but the right to vote is controlled by the States.

78 They've not been denied their voting rights--they're spoiled ballots as surely as if they had had more than one candidate selected or the like (until the law is changed by a real court in session or by the legislature and not by a corrupt panel "changing the law" after ballots had already been cast).

BTW, what's going on with the real bullshit with the write ins about not counting the Miller votes because he was no longer classed as a write in because he was a nominated candidate on the ballot? Has that challenge been dropped or are they counting them?

79 What is the sense of passing laws if we are not going to enforce them. We see this more and more everyday. Crimes are being committed and the government at all levels are REFUSING to enforce them. I want to see new laws concerning voting, require photo ID, require proof of citizenship, any form of voter fraud punishable by mandatory 5 years in prison for each count!

80 yeah whatever. it seems that any election rule can be waived. NO ID? no problem, come on in. CAN"T SPELL? who cares. BLACK PANTHER INTIMIDATION? heck nobody was bothered. VOTER ROLES NOT MAINTAINED? well look we've been really busy these last seven decades.

81 Joe Miller can't win in state court, so like the crybaby he is, he's running to the federal court to intervene in what is a state matter. No violation of conservative principles to see here people. Move along. What a f-cking hypocrite.

82 Too lazy to read the above...

Didn't the coke-monster already win a lawsuit she brought that recognized that the name must be spelled correctly to count,? Her win being that the State had to provide the voter with a spelling flashcard to spell her name correctly.

Hell, as this is evolving, might as well have put an 'X' in the write-in slot and let the courts count for her because "she was the only credible write-in".

83

Challenges came early as Division Director Gail Fenumiai made her away among the 15 tables, sifting through ballots and boxes labeled No. 4, reserved for variations or misspellings of Murkowski's name.

At one table, for each vote she determined for Murkowski, an observer for Miller's campaign challenged that finding.

In some cases, Fenumiai lifted up her glasses to scrutinize them more closely. For others, she put them at the bottom of the box, saying she needed time to think about it. An attorney for the state was at her hip throughout.

Joe doesn't have a chance, and never did.    If he pulls this out, it certainly won't be for the lack of cheating by the CBC.

84 I immediately issue a cease and desist order against this web site for prejudicing any future election plans that I may have.

And it's DOCTOR Lunch MacAndCheese!!1!!!11!!!

85 Posted by: JEA at November 10, 2010 06:12 PM (fnXy9)

Alert. Troll cleanup on aisle three.

86 Why have laws? Military votes regularly shipped late, dead people on the rolls, counting unofficial ballots with official ballots, last minute rule changes, "intent of voters," it's all bullshit and we lose no matter what. And by we I mean Americans of all stripes. This isn't a pubbie/dhimmi thing, this is the basic foundation of our system. I am not joking when I say if we aren't willing to stand up for this, because of some half-asses "legal" interpretation then we aren't fit to be a democracy. End of story. This is it folks, there ain't no going back.

87

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – A federal court judge has denied a request by Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller to immediately stop the state Division of Elections from counting write-in ballots.

U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline said Wednesday in his written decision that Miller has demonstrated no potential for irreparable harm.

http://tinyurl.com/2cj2onr

88

Hmmm...

Republic... a Government where the rule of law, is supreme... law is clear here.  Folks had the right to vote, Alaska, as the Constitution says, gets to make the rules about how...

"A Repbulic Maam, if you can keep it"...

89 As expected, the judge has already ruled against Miller as far as stopping the count goes (per Fox)

90 Ohfercrapsake. *I* learned to spell Schwarzenegger: they can learn to spell Murkowski. Or take a piece of f'n paper with 'em to vote. If yer too stoopud to learn to do that, yer too stupud to vote.

91 Newt on Fox discussing 2012 run. Screw him. He lost all credibility as a Republican when he sat on that couch with Pelosi and supported communist crap and tax.

92 U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline said Wednesday in his written decision that Miller has demonstrated no potential for irreparable harm.
Posted by: Tami at November 10, 2010 06:21 PM (VuLos)

I want to see judges impeached for bullshit like this. These kinds of shenanigans are why our election system has lost the faith of most voters, why voter turnout tends to hover around, what was it, 30-40% tops? 

If Repubs aren't willing to go to the mat on this, how the hell are they going to do the truly hard stuff like rolling back entitlements?

93 94 Newt on Fox discussing 2012 run. Screw him. He lost all credibility as a Republican when he sat on that couch with Pelosi and supported communist crap and tax. Posted by: Vic at November 10, 2010 06:24 PM (/jbAw) I thought he lost it when he complained Clinton made him board Air Force One through a side entrance. He really was a huge disappointment as a Speaker.

94 94 Newt on Fox discussing 2012 run. Screw him. He lost all credibility as a Republican when he sat on that couch with Pelosi and supported communist crap and tax.

Posted by: Vic at November 10, 2010 06:24 PM (/jbAw)

I think we can accept that Newt won't run and the only reason he does this is so he can get the spotlight on him so he can justify writing his next book.  Him playing coy keeps him relevant in his eyes.  If Palin doesn't run by 2020, you can put her in that category too if she starts playing coy like Newt does on the subject.

95

may i be on the 'hate' lawyers' bandwagon?

hate them all

except my wife, great legs

96 F Newt and all he stands for, I want nothing to do with him or his ideas. He did a great job in '94 but hes been all downhill since then.

97 Posted by: JEA at November 10, 2010 06:12 PM (fnXy9) Maybe it's because I was sockpuppeting Dick Morris in an earlier thread but suck on my toes.

98 The reason for the "exact spelling" rule is pretty good, really.  It's to prevent confusion in the case where two write-in candidates have similar (but differently spelled) names.  "Smith" vs "Smithe", for example.

So - the question is: do you apply a perfectly valid rule in cases where the reason for it does not apply?  As I recall, there were quite a number of  write-in candidates by the time the dust settled before this election.  So, the next question is - if you say you can ignore the rule when the reason does not apply - who, exactly, decides when the reason applies or not?

If you've got a rule with a valid purpose - best to apply it even-handedly in all situations.  It also helps that that appeared to be the law before the election - and Murky did make a point of educating people about the correct procedure.  She decided to run a write-in campaign knowing the ground rules, so - enforce them.

99 100 F Newt and all he stands for, I want nothing to do with him or his ideas. He did a great job in '94 but hes been all downhill since then.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 10, 2010 06:35 PM (61b7k)

More importantly, he did not keep his "Contract" with America.

Why trust him now?

100 Newt on Fox discussing 2012 run. Screw him. He lost all credibility as a Republican when he sat on that couch with Pelosi and supported communist crap and tax.
Posted by: Vic at November 10, 2010 06:24 PM

Sean Hannity hardest hit by Vic's comment....

I hope we can get the Repubs' minds right before '12. Allowing squishy D.C. insider fatcats like McConnell and Imhofe to rule the party and selecting a useless waste of air like Newt, Romney or Shuckabee as the next presidential candidate will do the conservative cause no good at all.

We need people in office who can do more than mouth a bunch of "conservative" platitudes, who know they've been entrusted with public office to act. Otherwise, Osama Obama wins again, and America loses.

101 When they decided to hand out the list of write in candidates, they decided that spelling counts.  The spelling counts rule was in effect the day of the election, therefore ENFORCE THE SPELLING!  Either that or have a runoff election between Milllerrrr and Myhrrcowski.

102 When will Newt and Rove realize that they are no longer relevant?

103 From twitter breaking news which can be accessed on drudge in the middle after the last headline: 


"Federal court denies request by Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller to immediately stop write-in ballot counts - AP"

104 how do you KNOW intent?

Check the affiliation of the person doing the counting, then you'll know what the incompetent voter's intent should will be.

105

Expecting a man who gets turned on by other men, to not be confused is asking for trouble. 

106 Gabe, if I write in "Lisa MorkandMinski" what is my intent? Is my intent to vote for Princess Lisa or to ridicule her?

107 Federalism, Gabe. You go the wrong way at that intersection far too often.

108 Ballots should be counted accurately and fairly.  Spelling mistakes should not be grounds for political disenfranchisement.  I do believe that someone should make a good faith effort to know how to spell the name of the candidate they intend to vote for in a write-in election, but failure to spell perfectly should not have that vote discounted. 

Common sense is all it takes.  If someone wrote Lisa M.  or Murcowsky or any other homonym of her actual name, then it is clear who they intended to vote for.  If they wrote Daffy Duck, then obviously that vote shouldn't be added to her pile.

109 112 Ballots should be counted accurately and fairly.  Spelling mistakes should not be grounds for political disenfranchisement.  I do believe that someone should make a good faith effort to know how to spell the name of the candidate they intend to vote for in a write-in election, but failure to spell perfectly should not have that vote discounted. 

Common sense is all it takes.  If someone wrote Lisa M.  or Murcowsky or any other homonym of her actual name, then it is clear who they intended to vote for.  If they wrote Daffy Duck, then obviously that vote shouldn't be added to her pile.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at November 10, 2010 07:11 PM (/gY4D)

If that's true then why fight so hard to have a list at every voting place so you would know who the write-ins are?  Why do that if correct spelling isn't needed?

110

Spelling mistakes should not be grounds for political disenfranchisement. 

It's not "disenfranchisement."  It's called a "spoiled ballot."

 

111

Not at all surprised to see Drew and Gabe come out in favour of Murkowski.

All the stops will be pulled out to get Rinos elected, but solid Conservatives will be left hanging.

The Tea Party needs to understand that the Rinos have got their back- unfortunately they have a knife aimed squarely at it.

112 The thing that gets me is that despite the fact that her name was sitting on a list right there at every polling station as distributed by the state, someone could spell it wrong?  Then I think their vote should be null anyway.  If they simply can't copy a name from one form to another than the likelihood that they are mentally handicapped is high, and that their vote had been coerced is quite likely.

113 Sorry, I'm not buying the voter disenfranchisement excuse. 

The election board already broke the rules and ignored precedent by providing a list of the write-in candidates to the voters at the polls all to help Lousy Lisa's moronic supporters.  All the voters have to do is copy the letters.  And, I am sure that if someone were truly handicapped or completely illiterate (to such an extent that they cannot copy letters from a form) there are already rules in place allowing them to get assistance, just as the blind are allowed assistance.  Not to mention that if someone was so intimidated by the process of writing down a name on the form, they could request an absentee ballot and take all the time in the world to get it right. 

Complete bullshit. 

If states are allowed to administer their own elections, why don't those rules - which have worked fine up until this election - have to be changed now? 

114 Every 5 year old knows that's unfair to change the rules during the middle of the game.

115 If we get to interpret voter intent, I argue that everyone who wrote "Lisa Murkowski" *intended* to vote for Joe Miller.

116

Can't we just "deem" Joe Miller to have won the election?

117 The law is pretty clear on write ins. The law is being broken in this state as we speak.

118

 The Alaska legislature may have spoken, but the legislature cannot by statute override the U.S. Constitution, which protects, among other things, the right to vote and to have your vote counted.

 

>>>> Then by that logic, there should've been a do-over in FL in 2000.

 

You're terribly TERRIBLY incorrect to defend these voters. Voting isn't just a right.....it's a privilege and you better know how to do it correctly.

Point #2 - you lose a primary, you are subjected to more stringent conditions.

 

119

 After all, knocking down literacy tests for voting was a pretty big deal at one time.

 

>>> It should make a comeback, along with a current events test.

120 I must have missed where in the Constitution that it says there's a right to vote...

121 121 If we get to interpret voter intent, I argue that everyone who wrote "Lisa Murkowski" *intended* to vote for Joe Miller.

Yep, so could I... since she was the incumbent and still listed as the Republican (which I don't get, frankly - she should have to be an R) AND for the first time ever the voters were given a list of names... some old farts might actually think she won the primary and think they were voting for the Republican party's nominee... so, you're right, you could argue they intended to vote for the nominee, Joe Miller. 

122 I mean: she should have to be an I (independent), not an R

123 >>the right to vote and to have your vote counted<< This is a loser of an argument. Those voters who voted for "Murcowsky" did, in fact, vote. They were not prevented from voting. Their vote was counted. It was applied toward the total of an individual--named Murcowsky--who did not obtain enough votes to challenge either Joe Miller's total or Murkowsky's total. To presume that the voter meant "Murkowski" is, in fact, to disenfranchise that voter by supposing he meant the former senator instead of the sole proprietor of Murcowsky's Grocery. It's rare that such clear guidance is present. It's even more incredible that some people are arguing that "voter intent" is credible against some of the most unambiguous legal guidance on the books.

124 I'm pretty appalled at all the people who think it's a good or somehow ethically defensible idea to disenfranchise obvious votes for Lisa Murkowski, however obnoxious she may be as a candidate. 

Gabe's legal reasoning is an entirely kosher restatement of the equitable considerations that go into voter-intent laws (seriously, how many of you actually understand that Joe Miller's legal argument would, if adopted, be an example of WILD judicial activismin contravention of decades worth of settled caselaw?), but what's more upsetting is just how on-board so many of you seem with the idea of simply denying people the right for their votes to count...just because they cast it against "our" candidate.  That's fucking sick, people, that's the end of democracy as we know it. (seriously, the guy who wrote "the Constitution guarantees you a right to vote, but not to have that vote count!"...look at yourself in the mirror and say that, buddy.)

I hate that Lisa freakin' Murkowski beat Joe Miller in AK, but SHE BEAT HIM FAIR AND SQUARE.  In fact, to be perfectly honest, she beat him in an UNFAIR fight, because let's face it: holy crap she had to run as a write-in with an awkward last name, and it's a flippin' miracle that she won it.  But boo fucking hoo, it's over.  And trying to artificially manipulate the vote to steal the election from the candidate who actually represents the people's choice...again, I'm having trouble believing that the people who are okay with this really give two shits about democracy in America. 

New motto: "A democratic republic...unless the wrong candidate wins in a close race, and then let's just be like Democrats in Chicago and steal that motherfucker."

125

Jeff B. apparently the law of the state of Alaska tells you to go pound sand. From the quoted text: 

 under Alaska law, a write-in candidateÂ’s name must be written “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy.” The filing quotes legislative language saying:

If she beat him fair and square why change the law to get that list of names at the precincts?  why bother having a list of names if the spelling isn't important?

126 Considering that there were a couple of dozen who filed as write-ins at the last minute what makes us so sure that Mofoski got the most votes - properly spelled or not?

127 Hasn't the Murkowski clan been plugging up Alaskan politics for years, now?

How can anyone still not know how to spell her name?

128 your vote counts just not for Lisa Murkowski but for whomever you actually wrote down ... every vote counts ... intent has nothing to do with it ... if you intended to vote for Lisa Murkowski then your vote has to say that ...

129 Alaska election officials should follow the law as written and make the Mudcowsky campaign file the lawsuit.  That's what always happens to conservatives when the liberals enforce election laws: last minute rules changes, last minute legal judgments, last minute boxes of "lost" ballots from liberal districts...

130 Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone has a right to vote and to have that vote counted? What's that you say? The Constitution does not say that?

Oh. So then this post is utter fantasy land when it comes to it's analysis? Got it. Gabe should be an activist judge. He's as good as they are at seeing shit in the Constitution that doesn't exist.

How embarrassing.

131 >>she had to run as a write-in with an awkward last name, and it's a flippin' miracle that she won it.<< She didn't have to do anything. She chose to be a bitter twist after losing the nomination, and won because some people are arguing that intent trumps execution. As for people giving "two shits about democracy" because people don't agree with your horseshoe-rules interpretation of AK law? Laym. Or leim. Lame? Whatever--spelling doesn't matter--you know what I mean, right? Dura lex, sed lex, brother.

132 As an Alaskan, this is truly an embarrassing situation for our state.  The state government is making up rules as they go along to get Princess Lisa elected.  I can understand the position of some about voter intent and not disenfranchising voters, but voters were given a list of Write-In candidates at the poll, against Alaska Law BTW, so there is no reason for her name to be misspelled.  From that standpoint, those votes should not count.  Just my thought on it.

133 Answer: Boolean ballots! R* For President, where * = whatever the voter intends it to equal. No misspellings, no problem! dixi.

134

I don't agree with Gabe the this falls under the U S Constitution. All kinds of people are disenfranchised for not following state laws or rules. Convicted felons, those who don't register on time, those that don't fill out their registration correctly etc.

I don't agree with Miller totally on this either. If someone makes a minor mistake you shouldn't take their vote away and it looks bad to even try. On the other hand I can see this getting abused pretty easily and if you make a mistake in other states on voting machines or not filling in the bubble your vote doesn't get counted.

135 Posted by: Jeff B. at November 10, 2010 08:00 PM (NjYDy)

Drama class let out early?

136 HBO2 Queen and I. It is an extensive interview with the wife of the Shah of Iran. Watch IT. History just repeats itself over and over again. The empress was asked why the people wanted revolution. She says they wanted things for free and the intellectuals believed he was like a Ghandi. Sound familiar?

137 Who knew Gabe and the courts were such big fans of Calvinball?

138 "The Alaska legislature may have spoken, but the legislature cannot by statute override the U.S. Constitution, which protects, among other things, the right to vote and to have your vote counted." They voted. It was counted. Good luck to Liza Merkewsky. You have 1 vote. What's the problem?

139

the voters intent was clear when princess lisa got the boot during the primary. Just another in a long line of Democrats doing anything  they can, legal or not, in order to stay in power.

It made me want to vomit when i was a registered Democrat all my life and it makes me want to vomit now that I am no longer a Democrat

140 Heads we win...tails you lose.

141 Gabriel must believe that Gore should have been declared the winner in 2000. If every voter with a butterfly ballot who punched both Gore-Lieberman as well as Buchanan-SomeWhacko had their vote counted for Gore-Lieberman as opposed to being invalidated, Gore-Lieberman would have won. And any honest person knows that is CLEARLY what they were intending to do. Lieberman's name was near the hole for Buchanan. They thought they were punching once for Gore and once for Lieberman. This is obvious. There is not other honest interpretation. But not even the activist Florida Supreme Court was willing to go this far to divine voter intent. The law clearly was that if you punched two holes, your ballot was spoiled and not counted. Rules are rules and you have to follow them, or else all close elections are determined by those divining the intentions of the voters. The state has an interest in creating rules which can be mindlessly followed.

142 The reason to step forward and insist is that it's very tough to do retroactively - and the "standards" can be quite insane. In the Washington 2004 governor's race between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi, a write in "Christine Rossi" was counted as a vote for Christine Gregoire. As was a vote for "The Queen."

Those are obviously extreme examples, and I'd grant reasonable phonetic variants personally, but if you don't bring this up immediately, you end up with the Judge saying "Why didn't you bring this up when I could have done something about it?"

143
An Alaskan casting a write in vote for Lis Murkowski or Lisa Murkowsky or Lido Mancowski is not disenfranchised if their vote is not counted for Lisa Murkowski.

The voting franchise is the right to vote and the right to have the cast vote counted.  In the example above, Lis Murkowski or Lisa Murkowsky or Lido Mancowski -- whoever they may be -- would each receive one vote as that was the name the voter wrote on the ballot and thus that was the vote cast.

Thus, there is no Constitutional issue.

144 I'm confused.  This very site made a point of having fun with the [omitted]'s name on the grounds voters would have to spell it right.  Princess Lisa realized the problem and got the election officials to clearly (black letter law, no room for doubt or debate) violate the election laws by printing up lists of write in candidates.  Had that effort never been attempted some sympathy might be due her, but now we are expected to sit quietly while the law if violated yet again?  What next, just deem her to have been elected?

145

Anybody remember hanging chads and votes that nobody could realistically interpret? Those votes all went to Gore. This is what Gabe is talking about.  He wishes to open up a whole in vote interpretation wide enough to drive a mack truck through. I also remember the SCOTUS ruling that the SCOFL couldn't rewrite the election laws.

Where in the Constitution can I read what you are talking about? I didn't see an article, section or amendment noted.

 

146

Don't know if it's been said or not, but here's my idea:

Divide all the votes into "Properly spelled Murkowski votes," "misspelled Murkowski votes," and "everybody else.

Do the properly spelled ones add up to more than what Miller has?  Then it doesn't matter how many improperly spelled ones there are.

147

Demanding the correct spelling on a write-in ballot is not a hardship that equates to disenfranchisement.  It is simply a basic rule that applies to all voters and all candidates. 

What happens when two candidates run as write-ins with similiar names?  If John Kelly and James Kelley are both write-in candidates, and someone writes in James Kelly, who decides voter intent?  In the case of the law in Alaska, J Kelly would mean John Kelly and J Kelley would mean James Kelley.  But who the hell did the person writing in James Kelly vote for?  Throw it out.

That is not as far fetched as you might think.  We had a candidate name war in Rhode Island a few years ago.  One guy changed his name to aRusso to get first on the ballot.  The other guy then changed his name to aaRossi.  I'm not kidding.  I don't remember the actual names, but that DID happen.

 

 

148 The exact-spelling law is essential, since how else can you determine if a WRITE-IN voter actually wanted to vote for somebody with a different spelling? You can vote for Bozo the Clown, but you could also theoretically be voting for Cozo the Blown. It is not the state's job to discount your intent based on their assumptions. It sounds unlikely, sure, that somebody who misspelled Murky's name by a letter did it intentionaly, but who the feck says you're not allowed to vote for somebody with a different spelling? That's what a WRITE-IN vote is, for Pete's sake.

149 "the right to vote and to have your vote counted."

Well, yes, but you must follow the rules as put forth before the election.  No changing rules in the middle of an election.

And as for anyone outside Alaska, that italian woman's epistle to the pope on birth control rings true: "You no play-a de game, you no make-a da rules".

We shan't speak of the celibacy of popes, it just ruins a good joke and a religion.

150

 

Happy to see your blog as it is just what IÂ’ve looking for and excited to read all the posts. I am looking forward to another great article from you.