You're going with a non sequitur again. Interpreting a misspelling of a name is not the same as changing the voting process and electoral system. It's using judgement so as not to disenfranchise voters.

 

Where's the respect for how our legal system functions? For past case law and precedents? This isn't changing rules "mid-game" but using reasonable judgement to interpret laws. Law rarely, if ever, have a single, objective interpretation, not the least because they're written and passed by many individuals. That is why we have judges and the court system--to determine the meaning of the laws based on past applications and current judgement.

You're going with a non sequitur again. Interpreting a misspelling of a name is not the same as changing the voting process and electoral system. It's using judgement so as not to disenfranchise voters.

 

Where's the respect for how our legal system functions? For past case law and precedents? This isn't changing rules "mid-game" but using reasonable judgement to interpret laws. Law rarely, if ever, have a single, objective interpretation, not the least because they're written and passed by many individuals. That is why we have judges and the court system--to determine the meaning of the laws based on past applications and current judgement.

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.

 

How many different ways can you interpret NO EXCEPTIONS!! It doesn't say, "unless you are an idiot who can't spell and doens't care to take enough time to figure out HOW to spell the name of the person you thnk you want to vote for"

Edited November 11, 201015 yr by Alpha Dog

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.

 

How many different ways can you interpret NO EXCEPTIONS!! It doesn't say, "unless you are an idiot who can't spell and doens't care to take enough time to figure out HOW to spell the name of the person you thnk you want to vote for"

These things going on are not exceptions against the rule. They are dealing in situations that the code does not explicitly address.

 

Let's put aside this silly idea that no interperetation of the law can be done, because that's impossible. And let's also put aside the equally silly idea that a vote for Lisa M, when there are two Lisa M's, should be guessed at - that vote should not count. So, you are left with the cases in between, which follow that law but still need to be looked at.

 

Law doesnt exactly say what youre interpreting:

 

(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.

 

The problem is how the law is written and that you have to break apart the subclauses.

 

Part 11 has multiple subclauses but for our purpose only " 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" is important.

 

A vote shall be counted if, any of the following occurs:

 

If the name as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy is written in the space provided

 

OR

 

If the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.

 

Now the first subsection sounds like it has to be written exactly as it appears on the write-in declaration.

 

The second subsection you could argue that because it does not explicitly say that the last name must match the write-in declaration or must match the persons last name in the records of the state, etc, you could argue that the legislative intent was to give some leeway for voter intent.

 

Furthermore we are not seeing the whole picture, a statute is just words. It is the case law that will dictate the interpretation of the statute. There may or may not be prior case law on this statute, but the case law would be the most important factor here.

 

The words only mean what the law interprets them to mean, and a Supreme Court Judge in AK could easily state that their reading of this clause allows for simple spelling mistakes of the last name. That the intent of the statute was to merely give guidance on what votes should be counted, not what votes should be discounted.

 

Whatever the case may be, there is a lot more to this case then just what the statute says. I have no idea and I dont have free access to AK case law (I doubt you guys are going to front the research costs), so I can only speculate.

Edited November 11, 201015 yr by Soxbadger

These things going on are not exceptions against the rule. They are dealing in situations that the code does not explicitly address.

 

Let's put aside this silly idea that no interperetation of the law can be done, because that's impossible. And let's also put aside the equally silly idea that a vote for Lisa M, when there are two Lisa M's, should be guessed at - that vote should not count. So, you are left with the cases in between, which follow that law but still need to be looked at.

NSS, the code does specificly address the write it situation. it says exactly how the name must be written, and then says no exceptions. Right or wrong,. how can anyone say that it isn't clear?

I think there is a very easy argument that its unclear. Im not sure if its a winning argument, but I would have no problem raising the argument.

 

Basically the legislature could have stated that the last name must be spelled exactly as it appears on state documents or the write-in declaration.

 

The legislature did not specify that, or more accurately didnt understand how to write a subclause and accidentally made a restriction only apply to the first subclause and not the second subclause.

 

Either way only the first subclause has any indication that there must be an exact match, the second subclause merely states they must write their last name. It does not say that it must be exact to count.

NSS, the code does specificly address the write it situation. it says exactly how the name must be written, and then says no exceptions. Right or wrong,. how can anyone say that it isn't clear?

See Soxbadger's post before yours, he puts it better than I did.

 

There is no case law in Alaska involving write-ins. Which makes sense since write-ins don't normally have a chance to win.

 

The Supreme Court of Alaska has had a few cases involving punch cards and voting machines. Most recent is Edgmon v. State, 152 P.3d 1154 (1989) which repeatedly calls for voter intent.

 

Notice in that case, the losing party argues that the voting law requires a bright line test for improperly marked ballots because the statute states that the rules are mandatory. The court essentially ignores this argument because, if that were true, then there would be no appeal process to the courts which the legislature also provides for.

 

In any event, I seriously doubt the courts would permit a person to win the election when, in their brains, they know the voters overwhelmingly voted against that person.

 

edit: I actually have to rethink this statement. Here is the language:

 

Moses argues in favor of a bright line rule that would consider the ballots overvoted without examining voters' intent. But the terms of the statute itself make voter intent paramount. The statute requires that before a mark is counted as a vote, it must comply with the requirements under subsection .360(a)(1) and clearly indicate voter intent as required by subsection .360(a)(5). These terms are mandatory and require strict compliance. Contrary to Moses's argument that judicial review of ballots would open a "Pandora's Box," AS 15.20.510 specifically envisions such a review in a recount appeal, providing that "[t]he inquiry in the appeal shall extend to the questions whether or not the director has properly determined what ballots, parts of ballots, or marks for candidates on ballots are valid."

 

Have at it.

Edited November 11, 201015 yr by G&T

What if the person forgets to mark the oval spelling not withstanding?

No oval, no vote.

 

I think that is pretty clear because it says they must fill in the oval AND.

First off I fainted when I saw Alpha being so critical of a Republican. Who would have expected Alpha to accuse so strongly a Republican for trying to work the system to her advantage to win.

 

Interpreting the law is why we have so many courts and so many lawyers. Which I appreciate. We'll need less as our rights get eroded.

 

If the ballots are denied, expect a suit from voters in Alaska whose right to vote was denied because of this law. I'm hoping she has enough uncontested ballots to win, and the last report I heard, seems to indicate she will. I also heard that the Miller folks contested one ballot because the letter L in her name was in cursive and the rest was printed. I'd be embarrassed.

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.

If anyone actually votes like this they are a moron.

First off I fainted when I saw Alpha being so critical of a Republican. Who would have expected Alpha to accuse so strongly a Republican for trying to work the system to her advantage to win.

 

Interpreting the law is why we have so many courts and so many lawyers. Which I appreciate. We'll need less as our rights get eroded.

 

If the ballots are denied, expect a suit from voters in Alaska whose right to vote was denied because of this law. I'm hoping she has enough uncontested ballots to win, and the last report I heard, seems to indicate she will. I also heard that the Miller folks contested one ballot because the letter L in her name was in cursive and the rest was printed. I'd be embarrassed.

Tex, they contest votes like that to make sure there are enough contested ones that they have to be looked at and decided on. 'Working the system' would be playing within the rules as allowed. trying to have the rules changes midstream is just wrong. They already had one rule changed that allowed the polling places to hand out a list of all who signed up to be a write in candidate. previously the rules said no. But a judge appointed by daddy fixed that one fast.

Tex, they contest votes like that to make sure there are enough contested ones that they have to be looked at and decided on. 'Working the system' would be playing within the rules as allowed. trying to have the rules changes midstream is just wrong. They already had one rule changed that allowed the polling places to hand out a list of all who signed up to be a write in candidate. previously the rules said no. But a judge appointed by daddy fixed that one fast.

No matter how many times you say the bolded, its still not true.

 

Either way you are calling out a Republican, and I applaud that. Most people here are slow to criticize a politician from their own party. Sorry for the top quote dfamn firefox

Tex, they contest votes like that to make sure there are enough contested ones that they have to be looked at and decided on. 'Working the system' would be playing within the rules as allowed. trying to have the rules changes midstream is just wrong. They already had one rule changed that allowed the polling places to hand out a list of all who signed up to be a write in candidate. previously the rules said no. But a judge appointed by daddy fixed that one fast.

Either way you are calling out a Republican, and I applaud that. Most people here are slow to criticize a politician from their own party. Sorry for the top quote dfamn firefox

He's "calling out" the Republican who lost a primary to an even-farther-right Republican but, by all indications, won the election. That's not exactly a non-partisan stance.

If anyone actually votes like this they are a moron.

 

Don't get me started.

FYI Miller is challenging votes such as "Murkowski, Lisa" as illegitimate. You can argue that he's doing it because he's desperate and it's his only chance, but it's still pretty dishonorable to democratic elections.

FYI Miller is challenging votes such as "Murkowski, Lisa" as illegitimate. You can argue that he's doing it because he's desperate and it's his only chance, but it's still pretty dishonorable to democratic elections.

He's desperate. He will challenge, they will be reviewed, and he'll lose most. He seems to be postponing the inevitable.

 

That said, I think most candidates would do the same thing. And its really not an awful thing.

 

What will be really annoying is if after the vote he loses (which he probably will), he then tries to sue. That's when it gets really petty and stupid.

 

So with about 40% in, 89.8% of the ballots have gone uncontested to Murkusbhdfluiabhlsbnl, and of the 9.8% contested, most of those ended up being granted to her as well. Looks like this is a done deal. Hell, she'd probably win even on just the uncontested ones.

 

I would have just found a bunch of people with names similar to Murkowski, got them on the ballot, and then disputed anything and everything. Obviously these votes were intended for Mekwonsky, or Morkisky, Merkorsky, or even McCominsky.

I would have just found a bunch of people with names similar to Murkowski, got them on the ballot, and then disputed anything and everything. Obviously these votes were intended for Mekwonsky, or Morkisky, Merkorsky, or even McCominsky.

They did that, I believe.

They did that, I believe.

 

what was the list of names they got on there?

Sen. Murkowski now has a lead of over 10,000 votes, which is now larger than the number of votes that Mr. Miller's side challenged. Mr. Miller's side is now asking for a hand-recount.

 

The AP has now called the race as well.