On December 28, U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline issued this 14-page ruling in Miller v Treadwell, 3:10-cv-0252. Although Joe Miller had already lost in the Alaska Supreme Court over the vote count for U.S. Senate, he had some distinct claims that had been pending in the federal case. However, the federal court rejected those arguments.
Miller first argued that the U.S. Constitution requires that only state legislatures may create laws relating to federal elections, and that when the Alaska Division of Elections decided that misspelled write-in votes are valid, that was effectively a revision of state laws and practices, and it was invalid because only legislatures can change laws and practices. Judge Beistline did not disagree with Miller’s statement of that argument, but the judge ruled that the Division of Elections did not change the rules. In effect, the law has always allowed misspelled write-ins. The judge wrote “The Alaska Supreme Court did not make a finding clearly contrary to the face of the statute…what we have before us is a poorly drafted state statute. Wisdom would suggest that the Alaska legislature act to clarify it.”
Miller also argued in federal court that under Bush v Gore, the write-in tally was flawed because there were no clear standards, so not every voter was treated equally. But Judge Beistline said every voter was treated equally, because all the write-ins were examined by one individual, the Director of the Elections office. Finally, Miller argued in this case that he was not treated equally because not all of his votes were examined carefully. But the judge said that the evidence shows that Elections Division workers did actually examine every ballot, not just the write-in ballots. UPDATE: the Alaska Elections Division has now certified Lisa Murkowski as the winner; see this story.
Covenant Party and Republican Party to merge:
http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=1&newsID=105297
A quick question. Will Senator Murkowski serve as an Independent or a Republican?
Murkowski will probably serve as a Republican.
Libertarian Voter: Now that she is re-elected, are you Libertarians regretting not giving her your ballot position in Alaska when she initially asked for it – as I understand.
Are you Libertarians so “principled” and “doctrinaire” that you couldn’t see the political savyness of giving her your nomination for the long term political publicity and exposure you’d have gotten? I mean both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have members who are “poles apart” but it doesn’t destroy the basic “doctrine” of these respective parties.
As I’ve said many times, 3rd partisans are their worst enemies.
No, I do not regret that the LP did not give her the Libertarian nomination. Lisa Murkowski does not represent our true libertarian values, and she voted for more big government and massive spending. “Political savviness” does not matter in the long run. Principles DO matter, and I will never compromise them, nor will the Libertarian Party.
Libertarian Voter: This is exactly why the Libertarian Party (and other doctrinaire 3rd parties) will never get anywhere.
If you get your satisfaction solely from espousing your doctrines, then have at it, as this is all you’ll ever accomplish.
Again, 3rd partisans are their own worst enemies.
I think Lisa Murkowski probably had a better chance of winning as a write-in candidate than she would have if she had been the Libertarian Party nominee. If she had been the Libertarian Party nominee, she would have been dogged by questions about whether she believes in the Libertarian Party platform. But as a write-in, she didn’t need to worry about any of that.
And if she had won as the Libertarian Party nominee, it really wouldn’t have helped the Libertarian Party that much, just as it didn’t really help the Alaskan Independence Party that Walter Hickel won on its line for Governor in 1990. People just assumed that Hickel accepted the AIP nomination for ballot access purposes, but that he didn’t really support the party’s ideas. To the extent that the AIP believed, and still believes, that Alaska should cease to be part of the United States, Hickel’s election didn’t seem to advance that idea at all.
Richard: You may be right and then you might not be regarding the Libertarian label being baggage for Murkowski. It’s hard to say as her obvious popularity would have overcame the Libertarian label “baggage” just as Hickel’s popularity obviously overcame the AIP’s “baggage” of wanting to allow the people of Alaska to vote to secede from the US if they wanted to.
I wasn’t suggesting Murkowski’s election would have advanced “Liberarian” ideas anymore than did Hickel’s election advanced the AIP’s. I was simply pointing out the positive exposure the Libertarian Party could have received nationally with a Libertarian Senator in Congress. It might have helped to dispell the image of the Libertarian Party being the “Losertarian Party” and the notion that Libertarians are extremists.
But obviously some 3rd party leaders don’t have the political savvy to understand this. This is the point I am trying to make.
While I can understand your point Alabama Independent, to have nominated a candidate who voted at least 80% of the time in opposition to libertarian values is just a stretch too far. The Alaska LP did the right thing in my view. If the proposed candidate was closer in philosophy I would agree but I don’t believe she would have kept the “L” by her name very long before rejoining the “Rs”. Even a voting record that was 60% libertarian might pass muster but not 20%.
ANY Miller emergency appeal to SCOTUS ???
Deja Vu 2000 >>>>
PUBLIC LAW 107–252—OCT. 29, 2002
HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002
***
[42 USC 15481.] SEC. 301. VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS.
***
(6) UNIFORM DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A VOTE. — Each State shall adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards that define what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote for each category of voting system used in the State.
[BEFORE each election day]
—–
Written especially for the legislative, executive and judicial MORONS in the Florida regime in 2000 following Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
2010 AK MORONS — with their AD HOC made up stuff — any different than the 2000 FL MORONS — with their AD HOC made up stuff — blasted in Bush v. Gore ???
——
How soon before ALL write-in votes (and even ALL third parties and independents) in ALL States are PROHIBITED by the party hack Donkeys/Elephants ??? — since WI winners, third party winners and especially independent winners are very disturbing to the party hack robots.
Statism = Donkeys/Elephants with their left/right more and more control freak mega schemes to make everybody a statist robot — think 666.
Freedom = Libertarian = mini-gov — to take care mainly of criminal enemies — domestic and foreign.
P.R. and App.V. — NO moronic super-dangerous party hack primaries are needed.
Ala Ind,
“If you get your satisfaction solely from espousing your doctrines, then have at it, as this is all you’ll ever accomplish.”
This can truly be said about not only about some 3rd party folks, but about majority parties too. Especially it seems the ultra conservative, tea party folks within the Reuplican ranks. Either they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the recent mid-terms in mnay high profile races or it will be very, very interesting to see how their seemingly inflexible views are able to work in the machinery of government when they actually have to govern and not just talk.
But alas these tea party folks were able to bounce into the general elections via major party ballot access lines. I wonder if the same could happen on the progressive side of the political spectrum?
I am so glad that some people actually believe in key values and principles, Alabama Independent. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats and dare I say SOME INDEPENDENTS, we Libertarians actually have principles and we are not just greedy for political gain. Richard brought up some excellent points and I believe that if the LP nominated Murkowski she would have lost. But even if she won, she voted against libertarian principles 85% of the time. This is not the type of candidate the LP needs.
With regards to your point about the image of the LP, this would have put a bad image on the LP, not a good one. We are NOT extremists and “losertarians.” Getting the TRUE message of liberty across to the voters will change the public’s stance toward our party.
Libertarian Voter: The problem with you Libertarians and other doctrinaire 3rd partisans is that you are so “principled you are paralyzed.” You couldn’t govern if you did win, because you’d constantly being challenging the “constitutionality” of every piece of “common sense” legislation, or you’d oppose it becasue it might offend that “holy” capitalist system you love to prattle about. Doctrinaire parties ususally only come to power and govern in dictatorships, the most recent two examples – Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. (And before folks start knee-jerking, I am not saying Libertarians and Nazis or Communists are the same. Absolutely NOT.) But I am saying you cannot govern a society with a strict set of narrow-based political doctrines. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) most people do not agree “eye for eye.” No one party – 3rd party or major party – has all the answers. We must take the best of all ideas and come to a concensus which will help the most people while hurting the fewest in the process. Still, some folks – especially 3rd partisans – don’t understand this.
And to Brad M Says: Yes, it is possible a “progressive-style” tea party could happen. And if the GOP Tea-partiers attempt (or get the power) to turn the clock back in the United States to a 1929 philosophy of government, you can bet the progressives will win BIG and the tea partiers will scamper home. I predict that happening at least by 2016.
1928 Prez Elephant 58 – Donkey 42
1932 Prez Donkey 58 – Elephant 42
Hmmm 42 base ??? — party hack robots each on both sides — with the 16 muddled middle terrified by both sides ???