Joe Miller’s campaign filed a lawsuit yesterday, asking that the Alaska Division of Elections be allowed to count only correctly spelled write-ins for Sen. Lisa Murkowski as votes for her. The campaign requested that a hearing be set for this afternoon.
After 27,000 absentee ballots were counted yesterday, the gap between Miller and write-in votes had narrowed to 11,333 from 13,439. But with only 12,400 absentee ballots remaining, it’s unlikely that Miller will close the gap, making the outcome of the lawsuit crucial.
The Miller campaign is asserting that Alaskan law only permits correct spellings, citing this passage from state law, “A vote for a write-in candidate … 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.” (Emphasis added.)
In a radio interview this week reported on by the Anchorage Daily News, Alaskan lieutenant governor Craig Campbell said “The courts have been very clear for the last 25 years that voter intent is important. You do not want to disenfranchise voters over a technicality.”
“It is our view that the state improperly deviated from the text of the statute, and is substituting a subjective ‘voter intent’ standard and essentially repealing the legislative objective standard sub silentio,” said Miller campaign lawyer Thomas Van Flein in a statement.
UPDATE: Over at Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty has a nifty chart showing how the Miller campaign thinks it will be able to pull off a win.
Miller is contemptible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI must disagree with the Lt Gov of Alaska who feels that voters not be disenfranchised over a technicality. What about the flip side? What about all those voters who voted correctly, who followed the rules and whose vote gets diluted because some know nothing can't spell and/or can't color?
Why have rules at all in elections the way things have been going?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJoe Miller, a man of principle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpelling, the new hanging chad. This should be interesting to watch, but not in the good way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA strict standard should be used for determing the vote. Since a list of write-in candidates was available at polling places there is no excuse for mis-spellings, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am no fan of Lisa Murkowski, but it is disconcerting to see a Republican fighting to keep votes from being counted. Most unbecoming.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is one of those very rare instances in which I can't help but be sympathetic to both sides.
Over the last ten years it seems that almost all recounts of very tight races result in Democrat victory, and it is astounding just how many red areas of the country have Democrats controlling the canvassing boards and boards of elections. Votes found in cars; people registered under the name Mickey Mouse; "swinging door chads" or constantly "evolving" standards of what constitutes a vote - it appears as shenanigans veiled with approval by Democrat bean counters. See the election of Al Franken and the gubernatorial defeat of Dino Rossi a few years back, as prime examples.
On the other hand, if someone spelled Murkowski's last name with a "y" at the end, is there any plausible doubt as to whom that person voted for? And is it not actually a little duplicitous to seek to have such ballots cast aside during a re-count?
Then there's my adherence to strict construction of laws by judges. They don't get to "repair" or make more reasonable the statutes passed by legislatures. Then again, this statute does not expressly call for a verbatim spelling of the candidate's name by the voter. It says "as it appears" -- and that provides a degree of doubt, in the very crucial context of counting votes cast by citizens (one of the most solemn acts a citizen can take), as to whether the statute is frustrated by counting a vote that was one letter off the correct spelling.
In the end, I wouldn't want to serve in the U.S. Senate if my only avenue to do so were to have thrown out all the votes for "MURKOWSKY". And that, I believe, is Joe Miller's biggest problem. I respectfully suggest that he declare his candidacy now for 2014, when the incumbent liberal Democrat has to stand for re-election in a very conservative state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApropos of Mark Steyn's quip that unless the Republican candidate is beyond the "margin of lawyer" on election night, it's an uphill climb. And, the Alaska law that allows for an "official write-in list" seems dumb. Either a candidate is on the ballot, or she isn't. Of course all this could have been avoided if the hereditary senator-for-life, Ms. Murkowski, had accepted the will of the primary voters and retired gracefully.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with 548600. Didn't Murkowski WANT the list to be provided at all polling places? Now she wants to make the law fuzzier? And yeah, if the voter can't transcribe the vote accurately, that's too bad for Princess Lisa (and may say something about the people who vote for her, also not in a good way).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think write-ins for "Sore Loser" should count toward Miller, but only if they are spelled correctly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood for Miller.
I am always dismayed by Republicans who concede early or bow down to liberal shenanigans. Coleman, Rossi, Foley, etc.
Of course the name should be spelled correctly. The law is very clear on that. And please don't give me some non-sense about "voter intent". The second "voter intent" is being determined by a canvassing board, it is subject to fraud. Just see what happened to Coleman in 2006.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf a voter can't follow these simple rule, the vote shouldn't count.
I'm with Scott and Bridey. As someone who has worked with Sen. Murkowski and her staff on legislative matters of significance to Alaska, I confess I don't share the reflexive dislike of the Senator, or the fascination with Mr. Miller that many on the Corner possess. reasonable minds can disagree. I do feel that an outcome that would require strictly correct spelling of the Senator's name is the sort of persnickety approach that Philip Howard has justly complained about. And I write this as the husband of a Duke graduate who has given up making any reference to Duke's basketball coach other than 'Coach K'. I find myself wondering whether, if elected, Mr. Miller would proceed to introduce legislation penalizing the improper use of 'its' and 'it's'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not thrilled with the idea of Miller winning by disallowing votes where the intent is clear.
Miller's strategy is indistinguishable from literacy tests used to disenfranchise blacks.
It's not difficult to interpret the statute as intended to provide the voter with more leeway rather than less: either the name as it appears, or simply the last name.
Miller's self-serving interpretation is not in the interest of the voter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is my understanding that the list of write-ins with the correct spelling of Princess Lisa's was provided contrary to existing law. Now, we are to have another amendment to the law without benefit of legislation. This is what happened in Florida in 2000 when the Florida Supreme Court threw out the law to help Gore.
RangerRick, I suspect "matters of significance to Alaska" are exactly the reason why the primary voters chose Miller. Corruption eventually stinks too much to tolerate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWoo!! Only slightly more than 10,000 votes that need to be disqualified for miller to win!
Go Joe?
In all seriousness, doesn't it say something pretty loud about the voters in alaska if Murkoswski can get them to WRITE her name in? She has to overcome all the voters who "vote the ticket" (dem or rep) in a highly anti-incumbent year. And the conservative press (NR included) wants nothing but her head on a platter. Yet, more Alaskans voted (wrote!) for her. That says quite a bit to me. Give the voters what they want. Don't go to court.
To me, this is quite different from a court battle over a very narrow result where fraud might have played a big part. This isn't a small gap we're talking about. Miller is literally asking for over 10,000 votes to be ignored.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. How desperate and tacky on Miller's part. Also, I love the idea being floated here that when a candidate loses a primary they should automatically drop out of the race. Doesn't that strike anyone else as very anti-individual? Political parties are antiquated, but until we get more legitimately competitive three or even four-candidate races, we are going to be stuck with them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrankly, I am sick of this whole garbage. None of the candidates deserves to hold this seat. It would be better to everyone in Alaska and out if the seat goes vacant for the next six years. Looking at the porkers they have been sending to congress, it might be better if Alaska reverts to a territory.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy personal view is that minor spelling errors should not result in a ballot being disqualified. Things like "Lisa M" are a tougher call, but trying to get judges to apply a strict standard in election law cases nearly always turns out to be a losing strategy. Just ask Norm Coleman. Opposing counsel will no doubt also look at the legislative history, to get a sense of what the legislature intended.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is reprehensible. For Joe Miller to lawyer his way into Congress on a letter-of-the-law technicality displays the same sort undemocratic sense of entitlement that drew the wrath of conservatives on Murkowski in the first place.
We cried foul when Al Franken did it; we cried foul when Al Gore tried to do it; we shouldn't be supporting Joe Miller when he tries to do it. Joe Miller is trying to steal the election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suppose it depends on how you interpret the law. As written, it's not clear whether the "as it appears" clause applies to the name *and* the last name, or just the name:
"A vote for a write-in candidate ... shall be counted ... 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."
That aside, I've been amused by the presumption that Murkowski should've dropped out of the race when she lost the primary. I understand that Republicans place great value on obedience to party authority, but come *on*. Senators from Alaska aren't elected by voters in the Republican primary; they're elected by Alaskan voters as a whole. You can easily win one without winning the other. Murkowski felt that she had a shot at winning. She felt that Alaskans *as a whole* wanted her over Miller or the other candidates. She seems to have been right about that. What's the problem?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse