On December 22, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a unanimous 24-page opinion, agreeing with the lower court, in Miller v Treadwell, S-14112. This is the case in which Joe Miller, Republican nominee for U.S. Senator from Alaska, had argued that many write-in votes for Lisa Murkowski should not be counted. The lower court had interpreted the law not to require perfect spelling. But the lower court had also ruled that write-in votes are invalid when the voter forgets, or doesn’t know, to fill in the oval next to the name written in. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the lower court on both those points, and on all the other points. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The decision is heavy on good rhetoric about respecting the intent of each voter. The part of the decision that disallows write-ins when the voter didn’t fill in the oval is inconsistent with that rhetoric, but the Court didn’t seem to recognize the contradiction.
And even if Murkowski didn’t get those misspelled votes (which she should under Alaskan law) she still would have won by 3,000 votes.
I weep for Alaska.
14TH AMDT, SEC. 2 WRITE-INS — right to vote – denied, abridged
How soon before ALL of the ANTI-Democracy gerrymander regimes BAN write-ins ??? — for any reason whatever.
Even though the US Supreme Court said in 1992 that nothing in the US Constitution requires states to permit write-in votes, not a single state since then has banned write-in votes. Write-ins have actually been expanded since then. Kentucky, Nebraska, and Virginia, which had previously banned write-in votes for president, now permit them.
The gerrymander monsters/oligarchs do NOT like having non-party hack persons being elected to any office — especially by write-ins.
— i.e. a direct threat to the gerrymander regimes.
The gerrymander WARs will be getting serious in about 2 weeks.
What the court said was that the law should be construed in favor of voter intent.
Alaska law specifically requires the oval to be marked – it does not require the oval to be filled. So an asterisk, or X or // through or adjacent to the oval, or equivalent to a misspelling of a write-in candidates name.
Contrast to New York where the law specifically prevents any special markings to indicate a write-in vote; or Colorado where it was the Secretary of State making up regulations for machine-countable ballots which was an expansion of what state law said was a valid way to execute a write-in vote (by writing in the name in the provided space.
In the case of misspellings, the court was interpreting the statute on how a name should be written, and was interpreting that in favor of the voter.
It is bothersome that Alaska can not produce reconciled counts of how the votes were cast in each precinct, because the votes were counted two different and independent ways.
Richard, so when was the last time the US Senate had 3 or more “independent” senators? I know technically there’s three now, but only one in true independent in Bernie Sanders.
The last time the Senate has as many as 3 members who had been elected yet they weren’t Dem or Rep nominees was just before the 1942 election. Just before the 1942 election there was George Norris, Independent from Nebraska; Robert La Follette Jr., Progressive from Wisconsin; and Ernest Lundeen, Farmer-Labor from Minnesota.
Thanks Richard.
LEGAL voting/votes and ILLEGAL voting/votes.
This stuff AIN’T atomic physics — regardless of Bush v. Gore (2000) — 10 years and counting — with armies of MORON lawyers and worse MORON judges writing MORON opinions about basic stuff — like screwing up that 2 is more than 1 — by definition.
intent stuff is *state of mind* = mind reading stuff–
If disputed, then a question of FACT for juries.
i.e. whether somebody intentionally or unintentionally did an act or omission.
Did John Doe intentionally or unintentionally shoot and kill John Smith ??? etc. Was it self defense or murder ??? etc.
See General verdicts versus special verdicts (finding FACTS only).
Thus — one more screwed up MORON election opinion — to be cited later by other MORON judges.
ALL election stuff is mathematical — YES or NO — NO taste or personal opinion stuff.
Thus – will the party hacks in the U.S.A. Senate have the final judgment on the write-in mess ???
Art. I, Sec. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ***
[due to the EVIL Brit monarchs in England trying to control who got elected to the English House of Commons].
What in Hell is ANY State court doing in reviewing ANY of the election stuff connected with U.S.A. Reps. and Senators ???
Does anybody see *final* before *Judge* in Art. I, Sec. 5 ???
#10 Yes. The US Senate will be the final judge if a candidate chooses to contest the election.
#11 Most rational States have special election law sections providing that any (general) election disputes about U.S.A. Reps or Senators go directly to the Congress House involved.
See the Rules of each House regarding election disputes.
This stuff continues NOT to be atomic physics.