Briefs filed with the Alaska Supreme Court in Miller v Treadwell reveal that 1,553 voters in the Alaska U.S. Senate race wrote in “Lisa Murkowski” but didn’t fill in the oval next to the name written in. The Alaska Elections Division did not count these votes for Murkowski. However, Murkowski’s attorneys are arguing that they should have been counted.
It appears that Murkowski doesn’t need those 1,553 votes, because the Division of Elections did recognize her write-in vote total as being 101,088, whereas Joe Miller’s vote total is 90,740 (plus 20 votes in which the voter cast a write-in for Joe Miller). The Alaska Supreme Court hears arguments in this case on Friday, December 17, and it seems likely the decision will rule on the validity of write-in votes in which the voter forgot, or didn’t know, to fill in the oval. Murkowski’s attorneys argue that the Alaska Supreme Court already ruled in 1978 that such write-ins should be counted, although the 1978 ruling involved punchcard ballots. In recent years, state courts in Washington and Colorado have ruled that such write-ins must be counted, by California courts ruled that they should not be counted.
Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog has links to all the briefs in Miller v Treadwell here.
ANY *Voter Instructions* on or near the AK ballots — in one more brain dead election law regime ???
How many zillion M ads (paper, TV, radio, internet, etc.) on how to vote a LEGAL vote ???
Where is that MODEL ELECTION LAW — with ALL possibilities — especially regarding LEGAL votes ???
See Bush v. Gore 2000 — ALL about LEGAL votes versus ILLEGAL votes in the then super-moron Florida regime of total idiots — legislative, executive and judicial.
See the Fed HAVA law – with a requirement for the State MORONS to have a definition of a LEGAL vote in ALL election systems – using paper, rocks, whatever — written with the Florida MORONS in mind.
One more MORON case for the SCOTUS folks and their over-worked clerks to worry about ???
The one good thing about this particular election, is it proves one with money, name exposure, and a good campaign organization, can overcome the “lack of ballot access” and still win.
I know most 3rd party and independent candidates will never have the deep pockets Murkowski had access to, but it shows lack of ballot access is not always a hinderance to a successful campaign. Hopefully with the internet, 3rd parties and independents can overcome this in some way.
There is hope – no matter how slight it may seem.
The apparent M victory will be used as an excuse by the Donkeys/Elephants to have even worse / more UN-equal ballot access laws.
She could win — therefore any third party or independent candidate *can* win.
P.R. and App.V.
This is stupid. If some one writes in a name then obviously that’s who they intended to vote for.
# 4 robot scanners for ballots apparently ONLY detect if ovals — regular and write-ins — are properly filled in.
Obviously there is LEGAL marking of ballots and ILLEGAL marking of ballots – also in the regular candidate/issue parts of ballots — i.e. the old marked ballots regarding bribes, etc.
Any body volunteer to look at about 130 million Prez ballots in 2008 or 2012 for those write-in votes for Prez/VP or any other office ???
Brandon, true enough, but the statutory language is very explicit in that it requires the oval to be filled in. I don’t see the judge overruling the Division of Elections’ decision to not count those votes.
Based on their actions, I think they (in a similar way) wouldn’t count a vote for a candidate printed on the ballot if, for example, the voter had circled that candidate’s name instead of filling in the oval. The voter intent may be clear but the ballot wasn’t properly filled out. The oval applies for all candidates, not just write-in candidates.
Whether or not that’s how it should be is another question. If voter intent should be considered above all else, then a ballot-qualified candidate could be more justified demanding a manual (not machine) recount of an election, to find votes for that candidate for which a voter didn’t properly mark the ballot.
As for Murkowski, she has enormous name recognition in Alaska, and she was also the incumbent (who’d lost her party’s primary). It may be a situation that comes up occasionally, but not often, and most likely not with third-party or independent candidates.
To: Brandon McGoon
Look what happened in California in the 2008 general election. The electors that voted in the general elections for Obama elected a dead woman picket by a
seating United States Congressman as a Presidential Elector. The dead Presidential Elector died prior to
the general November 2008 and prior to the appointment
by that Congressman in Humboldt County, CA. Secretary
of State Bowen did not check if the named so-called pick
for Presidential Elector was a registered California Elector in Los Angeles County as the Democratic Party
Chairman asseverated to Secretary of State Election Division. The Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters
certified that there was no such person registered in
Los Angeles County registered to vote. The Humboldt
County election official had the named elector on its voting rolls, but a check of vital records proved that so-called “Presidential Elector” was dead prior to the November 2008 election. Yet, both the Governor and Secretary of State certified the November, 2008 presidential electors with the dead person on its roles.
The California Election Code requires the remaining electors to elect the replacement elector, since a dead
person could not of attendent the Sacramento Electorial
College meeting, in December, 3008. However, the Chairman of the California Democratic Party stated that
the spelling of the appointed elector was an error in filing with the Secertary of State Election Division so
he picked a replacement delegate with the approval of the
Congressman weeks after the November election. The replacement so-called “Presidential Elector” got to vote
at the meeting of the California Electorial College in
December, 2008.
Botton line a person who’s name was not on the official
list of electors and picked after the election was long
over took office as a presidential elector long after the
election was over with the approval of both the Governor
and Secretary of State.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Mr. Seidenberg: The matter related to the “electing of a dead presidential elector” may be one of the few things we do agree upon. So if I can agree with you on this, why can’t you agree Chalene Nightingale WAS the AIP nominee for Governor in 2010, and along with the other AIP nominees for statewide office, did pretty good. I think most of them set records vote-wise for a 3 or more person race.
My point is that unless you and I and others who basically share the same philosophy, do not attempt to start working and cooperating together, then more of the same type of major party shenanigans such as the dead presidential elector scandal will continue to occur – only worse.
Is this what you want? Surely not!
Alabama Independent
1, Nightingale only got 1.7 percent of the vote in November, 2010, When Jim Gilchrist ran for congress under the AIP label he got 25.5 percent. There was a
range by county on the Nightingale vote. In Alpine County
she came in dead last with only one vote.
2. She was so bad as a candate that both the State Convention and the State Central Committee of the AIP
voted not to have a person running on the AIP ticket for
governor.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
In Alaska is it legal to write insomeone who is already on the ballot?
Many/most regimes now require that *declared* write-in candidates file a form with the regime specifying exactly what a LEGAL write-in vote must be.
John Doe — NOT J. Doe, NOT J.D., NOT J., NOT D, NOT John, NOT Doe, etc. etc.
Voting is MATHEMATICS — and NOT some sort of guessing game or art/music form regarding personal tastes.
See the many, many related time deadlines in election laws.
How will the party hack SCOTUS MORONS screw up write-ins — like they screw up ballot access, gerrymanders, etc. ???
Chelene Nightingale got 1.65% of the vote. That is the 3rd best gubernatorial showing in California for the American Independent Party. The party’s other gubernatorial percentages were: 1970 1.01%, 1974 1.34%, 1978 .97%, 1982 .71%, 1986 .68%, 1990 1.81%, 1994 1.54%, 1998 .45%, 2002 1.71%, 2006 .71%.
Mr. Seidenberg, you’re comparing “apples” to “oranges” with the Nightingale race for Governor and Jim Gilchrist running for Congress. Nightingale had to share the stage with other AIP candidates running for statewide office, where the Gilchrist race was a special election with national implications and a national following.
It is obvious by your negative comments, you are not interested in building up the AIP there, but only want to control who can and who cannot be a candidate. I was wasting my time in even suggesting we start cooperating. I assure you I won’t waste any more of my time with you. You don’t want to cooperate.
How sad. The nation is going to “hell in a handbasket” and all you can do is belittle how few votes Ms Nightingale received in one of California’s smallest populated counties.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.