Joe Miller Loses Before the Alaska Supreme Court
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Well, it’s another swing and a miss for Joe Miller. By now regular readers of this blog are familiar with the issues, so I don’t need to add very much that wasn’t said before. The court’s decision was very similar to the decision issued in the trial court (and thus my critique is the same), only with two differences.
First, the court basically read “as it appears” to be a reference to another part of the law allowing for nicknames to be registered. So according to this court, you can write Lisa M. and that is good enough. Yes, really.
Second, the Supreme Court also completely ignored the issue of mootness. They didn’t say it was moot, but they would consider anyway, as the trial court did. They didn’t say it was not moot. They just pretended like it didn’t even exist as an issue.
Now, as you know from a previous post, if Miller is going to keep fighting, he has only one option left: the federal bench. And he has very little time to fight this.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
I did say a few weeks ago that the language of the statute sounded to me like it was talking about nicknames, not spelling. When the law says you can write in the candidate’s surname or her name exactly as it appears on her filing, it seemed to me — and it seems that the court reads it the same way — that it means a candidate can file under a nickname and voters can write that in instead of her real name. E.g. if Murkowsky were known in the state as “Daddy’s Princess”, she could have filed and campaigned as that, and votes for that would have counted for her, but so would votes for her actual surname.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 5:22 pmNo, Milhouse, any intellectually honest reader of the law understands what ‘as it appears’ and ‘no exceptions’ means. They went out of their way to note that any exceptions to a difference in the names, be it spelling or something else, are not acceptable.
That’s just what the law says, plain as day. The court didn’t like the law, that’s all.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/22/2010 @ 5:26 pmDustin, nowhere in the law is there any reference to spelling, or any indication that “as it appears” refers to the spelling. That was pure supposition on Miller’s team’s part, which Aaron and Patterico bought. But it is perfectly reasonable to read the law otherwise, and indeed the language makes more sense if you do read it otherwise. You can claim all day that it’s “plain as day”, but it isn’t. That’s not what it means, that’s not what it was ever held to mean, there’s no authority at all for reading it that way. Just because you’d like it to be otherwise doesn’t make it so.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 5:30 pmOff-topic, but I have to ask: since Friday is Christmas Eve, when blog traffic is way down, do we get a Special Thursday Edition of Sockpuppet Friday?
The sockpuppety Dana (bd7e62) — 12/22/2010 @ 5:36 pmAnd what will you be so busy with on Christmas Eve?
Santa Claus (bd7e62) — 12/22/2010 @ 5:36 pmDelaware, Nevada, Alaska. Sarah Palin eating the Republican Party from within. Not necessarily a bad thing.
nk (db4a41) — 12/22/2010 @ 5:39 pmFunny, that Miller, O’Donnell, or Angle would have had no problem voting the correct way. Maybe this is why they have to mutilate the election law beyond
narciso (6075d0) — 12/22/2010 @ 5:46 pmrecognition, fix the ballots before hand, or accuse
someone of untold ethical inproprieties
Why are people still talking about Miller?
N 26th St (9c3171) — 12/22/2010 @ 6:25 pmSounds like the meaning of laws in Alaska is very subjective.
AD-RtR/OS! (375bbb) — 12/22/2010 @ 6:26 pmNot exactly what the Founders intended when they wrote Article IV, Section 4.
Perhaps the AK SC needs to be reconvened on an ice-flow north of Pt. Barrow – Polar Bears are optional.
As it appears now means close to as it appears so as a reasonable person could understand what you meant to say.
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 6:30 pmJD, that interpretation will only be operative until someone challenges the Princess from her Left, when her lawyers will take a one-eighty.
AD-RtR/OS! (375bbb) — 12/22/2010 @ 6:37 pm#6, Huh? Delaware was worth it, pour encourager les autres. Palin didn’t endorse Angle until after she’d won the Nevada primary, so even if for some reason you don’t think she was the best candidate how is that Palin’s fault? And in Alaska you got the result you wanted; so how has Palin damaged the party?
#8, People are still talking about Miller because as of now he still has a chance. The Fat Lady is still warming up, and anything may yet happen. While there’s life there’s hope.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 7:05 pm#10, How many times do I need to say this? “As it appears” means just what it says. If the candidate filed as “Lady Gaga” then people may write that in. They may also write in “Germanotta”, which is Ms Gaga’s actual surname. In either case, if the spelling is close enough to make the voter’s intention clear, it counts. So “Gagga” would count, and so would “Germanota”.
This is the most natural way to read the statute, and the most consistent with the way the rest of Alaskan election law works; Miller’s preferred reading is possible but strained. He tried, and he lost. He still has a few days to come up with something that will convince the federal court to delay things; I wish him the best of luck, but I’m not hopeful.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 7:17 pmYou can “explain” it all you want. That in no way requires me to agree with you. As it appears and close to as it appears are not the same to me. 6 is close to 7, but you could not tell me that they are close enough to count in the as it appears construct. Nor do I think you can divine someone’s intent without asking the person.
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 7:24 pmYou would think (Alert: Foreign Concept being broached among Leftists) that the proper spelling of each write-in candidate’s name would have been the version that appeared on the list handed out at the polling places under an agreement between The Princess and the State Elections Board.
AD-RtR/OS! (375bbb) — 12/22/2010 @ 7:29 pmSince the State was supplying the voter with a list of approved/certified write-in candidates,
the spelling of the names as they appeared on the list would surely take precedence over any other interpretation.
I mean, just how hard is it to copy something letter-for-letter?
AD – even Mercowski knew that was the standard prior to the election.
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 7:30 pmAcknowledged.
AD-RtR/OS! (375bbb) — 12/22/2010 @ 7:39 pmBut, she had to win, and would say and do anything to that end; and if she survives one last round of challenges at the Federal Bench, she will serve out her term, and probably find herself facing a Specter future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyQvjKqXA0Y
narciso (6075d0) — 12/22/2010 @ 7:50 pmDana
I am leaning toward a “yes” on that sockpuppet question.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/22/2010 @ 8:28 pmSome people just sockpuppet and namejack whenever they effin feel like it.
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 8:32 pmJD, you’re lying, and I call you on it. You don’t really believe that it’s impossible “to divine someone’s intent without asking the person”. You “divine” people’s intent hundreds of times a day without asking them. You do so from their actions, their words, their gestures, their tone of voice, their facial expressions, etc., and you’re right far more often than you’re wrong. And you know damn well that a voter who wrote in “Joe Miler” meant Miller, while one who wrote in “Lisa Murkowsky” meant Murkowski.
As the court points out in its ruling, it’s been long established that “the voter shall not be disenfranchised because of mere mistake, but [the voter’s] intention shall prevail”. What’s more, federal law requires that in counting overseas and military ballots “[a]ny
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 8:34 pmabbreviation, misspelling, or other minor variation in the form of the name of a candidate or a political party shall be disregarded in determining the validity of the ballot, if the intention of the voter can be ascertained”. If it can be done for such votes, why can’t it be done for domestic votes too? And if Alaskan law were really to set a different standard for domestic voters, wouldn’t that violate of the Equal Protection clause?
By the way, apropos of Palin, I’m watching two episodes ago of her TV show, and I have to say I’m with her guest Kate Gosselin (of whom I’d never heard until today) on the subject of camping: “Why would you pretend to be homeless?”
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 8:41 pmLeesa Meercowskee.
Divine the intent of that.
You are right, we do that plenty of times a day, but in an environment where we know things about the speaker, have visual cues, tone, expression, all sorts of things. On a write-in ballot, not so much. 2 words. That is all.
How many mistakes are acceptable?
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 8:43 pm“Leesa Meercowskee”, in the absence of any other known candidate with a name even close to that, is very obviously a vote for Lisa Murkowski. If the voter’s intent was difficult to discern, then the vote was not counted. And there was no Equal Protection problem of different standards being applied to different votes, as there had been in Florida in 2000, because the same person judged all the disputed write-ins for the whole state.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 8:55 pmAs it appears is rendered meaningless.
Why did Beerkaoskey want the list of names, properly spelled, if not to ensure that it would be spelled properly? Why make that available to the voter if it did not matter?
I am going to agree to disagree. I understand your view, I just disagree
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:05 pm“As it appears” refers to nicknames; it means the name that the candidate provided, as opposed to her real name. And those may be misspelled too. A vote for “Dadies Printses” would have counted for Murkowski, had the nickname “Daddy’s Princess” appeared on her filing, in the space clearly marked for it.
The idea that “as it appears” means exact spelling has no support whatsoever in the language of the statute or any legal precedent. It was a theory Miller came up with, and the court didn’t buy it. Nice try. Let’s hope he comes up with something better before Monday, something that will convince the federal court to continue its stay.
And if he doesn’t win, as appears likely, it doesn’t mean he was a bad candidate, it just means the voters were wrong. They can be, you know. They’re even entitled to be. There will be other elections.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:14 pmThe name is Lisa Murkowski, her family has held the seat for 30 years since they defeated Mike Gravel,
narciso (6075d0) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:19 pmthis is the same garbage that held the state and the nation hostage for 36 days, a decade ago, since
then, they swung the elections in King Cty, WA, and Hennepin Cty, MN
No support whatsoever is a bit hyperbolic.
If your spouse asks you how much money is left in the checking account, as it appears on the statement, as it appears has an ordinary and quite common meaning. Apparently, you find that to be unreasonable.
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:20 pmIf it sounds like I’m criticising Miller for trying this theory on with the courts, I’m not. It was a clever theory and a nice try; I don’t think it was correct, but in the absence of anything better it was worth trying to convince the courts of it. A six-year senate term is not to be sneezed at, or to be let slip through ones fingers through an excess of nicety.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:21 pmIt does indeed have common meaning, and it does not demand exact spelling, any more than it requires the exact font and typeface.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:23 pmWhy would that common meaning be different when applied to numbers? Your checking account balance, as it appears on your statement cannot have a digit off, no?
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:26 pmLook, why don’t you RTFD before criticising it?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:27 pmWho said anything about numbers? A mistake in numbers obviously changes the meaning, and is therefore not minor. “Abbreviations, misspellings, or other minor variations in the form of the name of a candidate” do not change the meaning, “so long as the intention of the voter can be ascertained”.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:32 pmI read it. Several times. Must I now agree with them?
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:34 pmHow would you ascertain my intent if I intended to misspell her name? Or wanted to vote for one of the random names, not listed, like at least 620 people did? Never mind. The should be things that reasonable people can simply disagree on.
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:37 pmIf you don’t, you should point to an error in their reasoning.
Look, maybe he’ll be able to come up with some evidence of the fraud he says he suspects. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was fraud, even without ACORN/SEIU working for her. If he can find hard evidence, he’s back in with a chance.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:39 pmHow would you ascertain intent on an overseas or military vote, where you are required to do so by federal law?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:40 pmAnd how do you overcome the Equal Protection argument? You’re faced with two ballots, both for “Moocowsky”. One came from a voter in Fiji, the other was cast in Anchorage. You must count the first vote; you have no choice in the matter. If you don’t count the second one, how are the two voters getting equal protection?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/22/2010 @ 9:46 pmMiller is beginning to look like the Black Knight
Kevin M (298030) — 12/22/2010 @ 11:51 pmCan we please disagree without calling each other intellectually dishonest or “lying”?
The decision’s reasoning is very poor, in my opinion. Full of platitudes and not a single reference to the “no exceptions” language that I noticed (didn’t control-f to verify so if I’m wrong sue me).
Patterico (c218bd) — 12/23/2010 @ 6:25 amPatterico
fyi, there is not one single reference to the letters “except” in the opinion, which would have hit “exception” and other varients. fyi…
It’ll be interesting because this is being set up like the Rehnquist concurrence in Bush v. Gore. Rehnquist said, more or less, “equal protection is all well and fine, but the real problem is judicial activism.”
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/23/2010 @ 6:41 amWell, somebody has to be in charge. We have an executive who takes his wife to $288 million junkets. Senators who need to raise $11,000 in “campaign contributions” every day. Congressmen and Senators who don’t read the bills they pass (and don’t think that the President does either when he signs them). So the judges step in.
nk (db4a41) — 12/23/2010 @ 6:54 amFair enough.
But I have a hard time believing anyone thinks ‘no exceptions’ means ‘exceptions for intent if the court thinks it will corrupt the election to follow the ‘as appears’ rule’.
The statute doesn’t say what the court says the law is. There are legitimate complaints about the law, and if someone thinks the law is unconstitutional in some way, I can understand the law not being followed. But the law says what it says, and it was applied against other candidates who couldn’t afford the machinations of a complicated election lawsuit.
When we let the law bend for the powerful, that’s worse than enforcing a bad law. Ideally they would simply enforce this and the state would change it for next time.
If someone really thinks the law means what this court ruled, then that’s just amazing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/23/2010 @ 6:56 amIn Sparta they called them “ephors” and they could order the king killed.
nk (db4a41) — 12/23/2010 @ 6:56 amNk
i will point out that we are talking about alaska. so maybe they do read the bills they pass. the US congress and president? maybe not so much.
Patterico
I will add that i think in one respect this is even worse than the lower court opinion, because at least the lower court had a plausible explanation for the word “appears.” and i still don’t understand why no one talked about the mootness issue, at all. They are treating this like a live election controversy, without explaining if it even is a live controversy.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/23/2010 @ 7:16 amGood point. Same winner either way, so it doesn’t seem like a ripe case.
Is it just me, or did Joe Miller go from having a bright career to being a pariah? What a shame, and in this case, I think some of the blame is on him. Some of the challenges were going too far. He was playing to win, after it was clear he had lost, and that was a long term mistake.
Perhaps they should amend the law from ‘no exceptions’ to a ‘unless there is no reasonable doubt as to the intent of the voter’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/23/2010 @ 7:35 amtest – firefox and ie giving me fits in another thread
vor2 (c4d3dd) — 12/23/2010 @ 7:53 amWhy is that,Dustin, why is Lisa not reproached for
narciso (6075d0) — 12/23/2010 @ 7:58 amher betrayals, on START, DADT, et al. How does Barnie Frank dare show his face, after being the accessory to this crisis.
Dustin
hate to nitpick, but ripeness is a different issue from mootness. mootness is about whether there even really is a case.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/23/2010 @ 8:24 am#40, I can certainly disagree without calling my opponent a liar, provided that he is not blatantly lying to my face. But I will not refrain from calling foul when someone does, just to be polite. In this case, JD made a claim that is not only false, but that s/he knew to be false, and so I called it what it was: a lie.
And no, the decision doesn’t refer to the “no exceptions” clause, for the very good reason that it doesn’t make any exceptions. The voter must fill in the oval, and write in the candidate’s name, either as it appears on her filing or her last name. There is nothing in the statute that says or implies that either of these options must be spelled correctly.
#43, the statute says exactly what the court said it says. You claim it’s been read differently against other candidates? When? Please cite at least one example. And there’s nothing amazing about reading the law as the court did; all one needs to do is read it, without having determined beforehand to squeeze a Miller victory out of it. The claim that “as it appears” means it must be spelled the same way is just as ridiculous as a claim that it also requires the same typeface and point size (or, if the filing was filled in by hand, that it must exactly mimic the handwriting of whoever filled it in!).
#45, what on earth do you mean by ‘at least the lower court had a plausible explanation for the word “appears”‘? Did you not RTFD before commenting on it? How did you miss the court’s clear explanation that the clause refers to nicknames, and its proof from the fact that the filing form has a space for them?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/23/2010 @ 8:40 amTo repeat, in case it got lost in all that, the court made no exceptions whatsoever to the statute’s requirements, and thus had no need to refer to the “no exceptions” clause. For instance, it rejected Murkowski’s claim that voters who wrote her name in but neglected to fill in the oval should count. She’s probably right that their intent is clear enough; but the statute says the vote doesn’t count unless the oval is filled in, so the court ruled accordingly.
If the statute had said the name must be spelt exactly, the court would presumably have had no choice but to rule that way too, because of the “no exceptions” clause. Then it would have to deal with the Equal Protection problem, and it may have had to strike down the requirement and count the votes anyway; but the issue didn’t arise, because the statute says no such thing.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/23/2010 @ 8:52 amNor do I think you can divine someone’s intent without asking the person.
JD, do you want to limit that claim?
Juries are regularly charged with judging people’s intent. One of the elements of the crime for which I was recently a juror was intent: the jury could only convict if it believed the defendant had committed certain acts with a particular intention.
This is quite common: many crimes require a finding of intent as part of the conviction process.
So: either your claim that you can’t divine someone’s intent without asking them is overbroad, or you think a lot of people are wrongly convicted under laws that require a finding of intent before conviction.
I’d submit that it’s more likely that your comment is overbroad. 🙂 But I’d also submit that circumstancial evidence of intent is regularly used to demonstrate intent.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 12/23/2010 @ 8:54 am#46, why do you think Miller is a pariah? He’s playing the hand he was dealt. It’s unfortunately not a good hand, and the stakes are high, so he’s doing the best he can.
And why do you think they should amend the “no exceptions” clause? I mean, perhaps they should, I’ve got no in-principle objections, but why? What’s wrong with it? The presumption in favour of following a voter’s intent is strong and well established in law, but it is just a presumption, and a statute’s clear language otherwise overrides it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/23/2010 @ 8:57 amI have to say I never expected to be on Aphrael’s side against the collective wisdom of the Patterico commentariat!
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/23/2010 @ 8:58 amAphrael – my statement referred to the act of writing a name down on paper. Milhouse wants to expand that to the known universe and call me a luar. In your example, in a courtroom, there is some effort made to ascertain the intent, by testimony, investigation, etc … In milhouse’s example, not so much. RTFD, or something luike that.
JD (6e25b4) — 12/23/2010 @ 9:10 amJD, if you claim that we cannot determine that a voter who wrote “Lisa Murkowsky” meant Lisa Murkowski, then you are deliberately lying.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/23/2010 @ 9:50 amYou should be able to point me to where I said that then. Are you trying to be an ass?
JD (b98cae) — 12/23/2010 @ 10:20 amAphrael – did my clarification make sense to you? Obviously, it did not to milhouse. He seems invested in calling people who disagree with the interpretation a liar.
JD (85b089) — 12/23/2010 @ 10:25 am“Nor do I think you can divine someone’s intent without asking the person.”
You then reaffirmed this several times, at least with regard to two words written on a piece of paper. And it remains a lie. One can easily determine the intent of someone who wrote “Lisa Murkowsky”, and you know it very well.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/23/2010 @ 10:35 amWhat if they intended to write Murkowsky? Fact is that you are substituting you desire for their action, and claiming anyone that does not agree with you is a liar. Bugger off. LeEza Meerkaoskey. It was my intent to write that exactly as is. You would give that as a vote to someone that it was not intended for. Yet I am a liar.
JD (b98cae) — 12/23/2010 @ 10:59 amJD: thank you for the narrowing amendment. 🙂
In a normal situation, though, I think intent can be discerned from the words written into the write-in space. This is especially the case when there’s a list of qualified write-ins; if there’s only two qualified write-ins and one of them is a woman and one is a man, it’s perfectly clear what the intent of someone who writes in “That Great F***ing B**ch” is.
In the particular case of this election, though, it looks as though supporters of Joe Miller went to some lengths to create uncertainty. Getting “Lisa M” listed as a candidate was a stroke of genius, for example. And the fact that a talk radio host was encouraging people to write in misspellings as a protest was, as well (although I also think that deliberately trying to create uncertainty is an abuse of the process and is somewhat designed to undermine confidence in the electoral system for no good reason – making cheap political points that help your guy at the cost of undermining everyone’s faith in the system is close to the ultimate in putting party before country. All of which is to say: brilliant, but unfortunate, tactic).
So, I can’t make a general statement about whether intent is clear in the case of all of the write-in votes in this case. But ultimately I think that’s because people were deliberately trying to make it uncertain … and in the case of that kind of behavior, of course it’s hard to discern intent.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:21 amMilhouse: in general I agree with the point that someone who wrote ‘Lisa Murkowsky’ intended to vote for the incumbent. I think it’s a fair thing to presume that people who are writing in the names of candidates are doing so earnestly, and it’s ridiculously common for people to not know how to spell. The spelling-disabled should not be disenfranchised.
In the case of this election, though … with someone with a sizable public platform deliberately trying to get people to misspell her name as a form of protest … I can’t say that it’s clear what the intent was.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:23 am“…because the same person judged all the disputed write-ins for the whole state.”
And we know that how?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:23 amThat makes you a liar, aphrael 😉
JD (b98cae) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:28 amJD: There are good reasons why this wouldn’t work (the first amendment being one of them, but there are other problems with it as well), but part of me thinks that the talk show host who was deliberately trying to introduce uncertainty ought to be subject to prosecution for election fraud.
I mean – it’s utterly impractical and would cause more problems than it would solve – but deliberately trying to create uncertainty about write-ins in this fashion strikes me as deliberately disenfranchising people who are too uninformed to be able to spell Murkowski’s name correctly. It’s an attempt at vote suppression that really, deeply rubs me the wrong way.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:35 am“…prosecution for election fraud…”
I think his having to deal with six more years of Senator Murkowski is ample punishment for his theatrics.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:38 amI’ve had a fair amount of disagreements with Fagan, over the years, he doesn’t take even mild criticism
narciso (6075d0) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:39 amterribly well, but Murkowski was trying to game the system, and the response that another commenter came up with well within the parameters of dealing
with such fraud, which the court didn’t even bother to investigate,
Aphrael – how could they be uninformed when they were handed a sheet with the proper spelling?
JD (b98cae) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:40 amJD: maybe it’s different in Alaska than it is here.
Here, you aren’t handed a sheet with the list of the write-in candidates -> that would be far too expensive. Somewhere in the polling place, in a spot which is inconspicuous and not differentiated from anything else posted on the wall, a list is posted.
You have to know there is a list.
You have to go find it.
Then you have to remember how it was spelled on the list.
Any one of these is subject to a high failure rate. Most people don’t know there’s a specific list of qualified write-ins. The list is inconspicuous and something of a pain to find. And remembering how to spell something you just read may be difficult (and it’s even worse if, say, the voter is dyslexic).
Based on the way write-ins work in California, I think it’s entirely reasonable to believe that someone could walk into the voting booth and not know how to spell the name of the write-in candidate they know they want to vote for.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:46 amOr, you can ask one of the poll workers whether there’s a list, and then write down the name of the person you want to vote for. If you fail at doing that, well, stupidity is its own reward.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 12/23/2010 @ 11:50 amSome chump: still requires that you know there’s a list.
I would add that in sixteen years of working as a poll worker at every election, I was only ever asked for the list of write-in candidates once.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/23/2010 @ 12:05 pmComment by aphrael — 12/23/2010 @ 11:46 am
This was the first time in AK’s electoral history that such a list was provided, and there is no provision in the law to do so.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/23/2010 @ 12:13 pmThe excuse they used was that it was a “service” to the voters due to the more than one-hundred registered write-in candidates.
But, a lot of people (yours truly included) believe that once you provide a list,
the least the voter could do would be to faitfully copy the name onto the ballot with the proper spelling.
Ow! Lets try “faithfully”.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/23/2010 @ 12:14 pmIt also requires that you know there’s an election, and where your polling place is.
You’re treating people like infants if you think it’s too much of a mental strain for them to remember that there is a list of write-in candidates.
Some chump (e84e27) — 12/23/2010 @ 5:11 pmSay what you want, Murkowski earned her seat this time. A statewide write-in campaign? Give credit where credit is due.
nk (db4a41) — 12/23/2010 @ 5:12 pmThere is nothing you can reasonably infer from this factoid. It could be that very few people at your precinct wanted to vote for a write-in candidate. It could be that almost everyone who did want to vote for a write-in candidate already knew the name he was going to write in. It could also be that no one cared who was on the list.
Seriously, if this is the best you’ve got, perhaps you should concede this point.
Some chump (e84e27) — 12/23/2010 @ 5:15 pmShe lost in the primary, the libertarians didn’t want her, the GOP establishment like Taylor’s gang, wanted their pork, they really haven’t cared about developing ANWR to any serious extent, the left abandoned McAdams, because they figured pretty quickly she’s either stupid or unprincipled enough to be their vehicle, DADT, the START treaty that the Siloviki won’t even consider till after 2012, the FS bill she didn’t read, DREAM Act, She’ll vote for any Obama apparatchik they send up. She is a battering ram to any hope we have toward fiscal sanity and common sense defense
narciso (6075d0) — 12/23/2010 @ 5:24 pm