http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/20...tinue-u-s-judge

 

Seems Joe Miller (TEA Party) wants only those votes with perfect spelling to count and Merkowsky Murkowski ® wants those votes whose intent is clear to count.

For the most part, these ballots will be abundantly clear for voter intent, except for one problem. There is another "Lisa M" who was a write-in candidate. So anyone who just wrote Lisa, or who wrote Lisa M, probably won't count, and shouldn't.

 

The problem is the law up there says that for a write in vote to count it has to be spelled just like it is written on the write in form. That is the law. Now people want to change it after the fact so that it benefits them? Change it before the election. Bad enough she got rules changed before the election to allow the election people to hand out a list with all the write in candidates names on it, now they want to change this rule mid stream as well? 'Abundently clear' shouldn't matter, there IS a law in place there to follow. Joe just wants them to follow it.

Edited November 11, 201015 yr by Alpha Dog

The problem is the law up there says that for a write in vote to count it has to be spelled just like it is written on the write in form. That is the law. Now people want to change it after the fact so that it benefits them? Change it before the election. Bad enough she got rules changed before the election to allow the election people to hand out a list with all the write in candidates names on it, now they want to change this rule mid stream as well? 'Abundently clear' shouldn't matter, there IS a law in place there to follow. Joe just wants them to follow it.

Actually, if you read the articles about this, you will see that the law also allows the election judges to use voter intent on any questionable ballots. So, they are following the law - they are just following the whole law, whereas Miller wants them to follow only part of it.

 

Actually, if you read the articles about this, you will see that the law also allows the election judges to use voter intent on any questionable ballots. So, they are following the law - they are just following the whole law, whereas Miller wants them to follow only part of it.

While there are parts about the voter intent, after that where the write in rules are, is says very clearly what HAS to be doone for it to count. If the people writing the laws just wanted voter intent alone, they would not have added a special section saying that write ins count ONLY if written the correct way. That is pretty clear, kinda like when a law says SHALL NOT.

While there are parts about the voter intent, after that where the write in rules are, is says very clearly what HAS to be doone for it to count. If the people writing the laws just wanted voter intent alone, they would not have added a special section saying that write ins count ONLY if written the correct way. That is pretty clear, kinda like when a law says SHALL NOT.

I agree its clear - its clear that they have to take what the voter says, but that in cases where what they say doesn't exactly match any candidate, they have to determine voter intent. Which seems like the logical way to do it. I fail to see the problem here, except again, with the whole Lisa M thing (and in that case, I think the vote should go to no one).

 

I agree its clear - its clear that they have to take what the voter says, but that in cases where what they say doesn't exactly match any candidate, they have to determine voter intent. Which seems like the logical way to do it. I fail to see the problem here, except again, with the whole Lisa M thing (and in that case, I think the vote should go to no one).

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

 

(10) 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.

 

(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.

 

edit: That smily face was a 'B with a ) when I pasted it. Hmmm.

Seriously, how much more clear does that need to be? They do NOT have to match oter intent. They have a clear rule to follow.

Edited November 11, 201015 yr by Alpha Dog

Why do you want to disenfranchise voters who have clear intent?

If you like a write-in candidate enough to want to vote for them, shouldn't you at least make sure you know how to spell their name correctly before you enter the polls?

Why do you want to disenfranchise voters who have clear intent?

Change the rules if you don't like it. Before the fact, not after. Lisa's camp knew this rule going in, that is why they stated a huge spelling bee type campaign, purchased and handed out wristbands with her name on it, made temporary tattoos, etc. They knew the rule. Now they want to have it both ways.

Change the rules if you don't like it. Before the fact, not after. Lisa's camp knew this rule going in, that is why they stated a huge spelling bee type campaign, purchased and handed out wristbands with her name on it, made temporary tattoos, etc. They knew the rule. Now they want to have it both ways.

 

don't courts have a history of ruling in favor of "voter intent" understanding of the law, so that people aren't unnecessarily disenfranchised over technicalities?

don't courts have a history of ruling in favor of "voter intent" understanding of the law, so that people aren't unnecessarily disenfranchised over technicalities?

Is voter registration a technicality? Why have rules at all?

Is voter registration a technicality? Why have rules at all?

 

Non sequitur. What does voter registration have to do with this?

 

Throwing out the vote of someone who wrote "Murkowsky" is pretty clearly disenfranchisement over a spelling mistake. Do you think that's a good policy to have?

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

 

 

 

edit: That smily face was a 'B with a ) when I pasted it. Hmmm.

Seriously, how much more clear does that need to be? They do NOT have to match oter intent. They have a clear rule to follow.

And the case law is equally clear that in edge cases (i.e. where the name may not be spelled correctly as discussed here) but the intent was clear, should be counted. This is how the law works - it does not explicitly cover every conceivable situation that may occur. So despite what some people think, there will always be intereperetation.

 

And it does not stand in violation of that law in my view, because clearly the voter cannot know everything about the candidate's paperwork. Did they use a middle initial? Did they use an abbreviated first name? Putting blocks in place that require voters to know what they can't possibly know is essentially a block against all write-ins, which would never stand up in court. Therefore, you have to allow for the voter to express the name as best they can within reason, and where there is no logical question of intent.

By the way, with 20% of the write-in votes counted so far, 98% of them are going to Murkowski. If that continues, she wins easily.

 

Non sequitur. What does voter registration have to do with this?

 

Throwing out the vote of someone who wrote "Murkowsky" is pretty clearly disenfranchisement over a spelling mistake. Do you think that's a good policy to have?

Except where you have cases of people who wrote her name wrong, on purpose. Read blogs and news stories up there. There are people who wrote it wrong thinking, incorrectly as it seems, that they could be playing with Lisa on that issue. Would suck to lose with a few hundred writeins with your name spelled wrong. So yes, I think it is a good policy to have. Spell it right, or too bad. Knowing how to spell ONE name correctly isn't too hard of a burden and doesn't imposes economic hardship on anyone.

Except where you have cases of people who wrote her name wrong, on purpose. Read blogs and news stories up there. There are people who wrote it wrong thinking, incorrectly as it seems, that they could be playing with Lisa on that issue. Would suck to lose with a few hundred writeins with your name spelled wrong. So yes, I think it is a good policy to have. Spell it right, or too bad. Knowing how to spell ONE name correctly isn't too hard of a burden and doesn't imposes economic hardship on anyone.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. You really think any significant number of people wrote it wrong on purpose? And if they did, well honestly, they didn't really want to vote, so they can go screw themselves. That parts not a legal interperetation, that's just my opinion.

 

No one said anything of economic hardship either, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

 

Except where you have cases of people who wrote her name wrong, on purpose. Read blogs and news stories up there. There are people who wrote it wrong thinking, incorrectly as it seems, that they could be playing with Lisa on that issue. Would suck to lose with a few hundred writeins with your name spelled wrong. So yes, I think it is a good policy to have. Spell it right, or too bad. Knowing how to spell ONE name correctly isn't too hard of a burden and doesn't imposes economic hardship on anyone.

 

That can amount to a literacy test.

 

I can't believe you think it's a good policy to disenfranchise voters over misspellings.

edit: That smily face was a 'B with a ) when I pasted it. Hmmm.

Whenever you want a B) to show up instead of the smiley you have to uncheck the "Enable emoticons?" option when creating your post.

 

**exits stage left**

Edited November 11, 201015 yr by BigSqwert

That can amount to a literacy test.

 

I can't believe you think it's a good policy to disenfranchise voters over misspellings.

I am not one for stopping people from voting, but I am not for helping idiots to vote. If you have to go to their door to get them to register, show up at their house and drive them to get them to go to vote, and hand them a piece of paper telling them who to vote for, I want those people to stay home. They dishonor the right to vote. Same for people to fooking stupid to fill in an oval, check a box or spell a name correctly. Voting is not rocket science. And fyi, they disenfranchised themselves by not spelling the name correctly. I am for following the law as it is written, not as some want it to be interpreted.

Whenever you want a B) to show up instead of the smiley you have to uncheck the "Enable emoticons?" option when creating your post.

 

**exits stage left**

I figured it was somethign along those lines. B)

Idiots have every right to representation and to consenting to governance as anyone else.

 

You honestly think it's good for democracy if someone who spelled her name "Murkowsky" has their vote thrown out? That isn't a disgrace to the idea of voting for representation?

Edited November 11, 201015 yr by StrangeSox

By law, i think Miller is in the right here. Even if you factor this in, i think Murkowski still takes it.

By law, i think Miller is in the right here. Even if you factor this in, i think Murkowski still takes it.

I would probably agree with you.

Idiots have every right to representation and to consenting to governance as anyone else.

 

You honestly think it's good for democracy if someone who spelled her name "Murkowsky" has their vote thrown out? That isn't a disgrace to the idea of voting for representation?

Where is the respect for law? Amywhere? Anyone? maybe we should just get rid of that whole electoral college thing and go by popular vote, since that is the voters intent, eh? Laws be damned. Fixc the law, then worry about it. You can't change rules mid-game.