Breaking: Federal Judge Grants Injunction to Miller Campaign (Update: Analysis of the Ruling)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
Now, I always say that when you are reading about legal issues in the news, you should take it all with a grain of salt. Very often reporters understand so little about the law, they have no idea what is really going on. I don’t mean there is an ideological bent, necessarily, but they literally lack the expertise to talk about it. It would be like a Teetotaler opining about the benefits of Alcohol mixed with Caffeine. Crazy, I know…
But according to the Anchorage Daily News, Joe Miller is being granted a very unusual injunction. Here, let me let them explain:
An Alaska federal judge ruled Friday that Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller’s challenge to the counting of write-in ballots raises “serious” legal issues but is a matter for a state, not federal, court to decide.
Yet in deferring to an Alaska state court for a final decision, U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline said he would grant a temporary injunction to halt official certification of the Nov. 2 election — an action Miller is seeking — so long as Miller takes his case to the state court by Monday.
Beistline’s unusual action was intended to “ensure that these serious state law issues are resolved prior to certification of the election,” the ruling said.
As they say read the whole thing. I will wait until I can see the actual ruling before commenting, but stay tuned.
And in the meantime, Katrina Trinko makes a compelling case that the results in the election are questionable.
Update: I have found the ruling, here via newsminer, whatever the hell that is.
The short version is that the federal judge has decided to put the federal element of the case on hold. He has required the Miller campaign to file in state court, and seek relief there, starting Monday. The federal judge felt uncomfortable interpreting state law on the issue of perfect spelling that Patterico has discussed several times (here and here), so he figured this was the best way to let the state courts have the first crack at the interpretation of state law. Since the federal case is merely stayed, if there is a serious federal question raised by the results of those state court decisions, then the federal judge can step right back in.
It’s interesting, because it is literally the mirror opposite of what happened in the Oklahoma anti-Sharia amendment case I wrote about last week. There, the district court took it upon itself to expansively interpret the Oklahoma amendment in a manner that I didn’t believe to be warranted by its plain text, and then having interpreted it so broadly, then proceeded to declare that this interpretation was unconstitutional. As I wrote there:
another problem… is that this federal court is seeking to interpret a proposed provision of the state constitution. Shouldn’t the courts just let the state courts figure out what the amendment means, first, and then let people challenge whether that amendment, as interpreted, is unconstitutional? In other words, the plaintiff belongs in state court, not federal court.
So this decision in the Miller case strikes me as the right approach. The state courts are experts in their state legal cultures, and thus more likely to be interpret state laws (or constitutions) correctly. And yet it still reserves both parties’ ability to preserve their rights under federal law, by a federal court, all while putting the state courts on notice that the federal court is keeping an eye on things.
It is worth noting also that consistent with a prior ruling he still hasn’t stopped the count, but has only enjoined the certification, which Patterico (and I) found troubling.
As for the ultimate issue, there are some who have argued that this language in Alaska’s statutes…
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.
…does imply that the full name has to be spelled correctly but, the argument goes, it also implies that you can write the last name with imperfect spelling and so long as voter intent is clear, it would still count. There is some grammatical support because the structure of the sentence does suggest that the phrase “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy” only modifies the term “name” but not “last name.”
But honestly I don’t think that is a correct interpretation. I mean by that approach, if a person writes “Murkowsky” that becomes a vote for Murkowski. But if they write “Lisa Murkowsky” suddenly it doesn’t count? That is an absurd rule, and one very important principle in statutory interpretation is that the courts will generally try to avoid absurd results. I mean they won’t take that principle too far—if a statute is clearly written in an absurd fashion, the court will let it apply absurdly (presuming there is no constitutional problem). But I believe here, this canon of interpretation would work in Miller’s favor.
Anyway, an interesting development on a Friday night, and we will surely keep track of this as it develops.
Update (II): Misidentified the newspaper. Thanks AD.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
……or like a lawyerly blogger opining on the details of how to commmit journalism……..
Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 11/19/2010 @ 6:34 pmMawy needs a widdle attention …
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/19/2010 @ 6:36 pmWhat’s weird, is Brad Friedman is seemingly on the
principled side of this, in the Huff Po, I’m checking for ‘bearded Spock.
[nick fixed. –Aaron]
narciso (82637e) — 11/19/2010 @ 6:36 pmLarry
I think the blogosphere has shown amply that journalists lack any special expertise, disqualifying regular citizens from criticism, lawyers or not.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/19/2010 @ 6:43 pmMake Princess Skeeza sweat.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/19/2010 @ 6:52 pmAW…That’s the Anchorage Daily News!
AD-RtR/OS! (408097) — 11/19/2010 @ 6:55 pmCall it the Daily News it’s as worthless as it’s NY Counterpart
[nick fixed. Aaron]
narciso (82637e) — 11/19/2010 @ 7:07 pmAD
Thanks. D’oh.
Zeph
um, i think you forgot to turn off your sockpuppetry…
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/19/2010 @ 7:23 pmSorry about that, it’s McClatchy, as some one once
narciso (82637e) — 11/19/2010 @ 7:30 pmtold me ‘friends don’t let friends read it’ that’s why they had McClatchy Watch for the better part of a year, doing what this blog does to the Times
narcisco
Okay, fixed all the accidental sock puppetry. no need for apology. everyone does it now and then. the only reason i don’t do it anymore is because of my special privileges as an author. I got to the point that i swore off sock puppetry because i was sick of screwing that up.
Btw, total nerd points for the star trek reference.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/19/2010 @ 7:37 pmThis is a curious cite, in the case, which I hadn’t
considered;
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2203153069610266193&q=Burdick+v.+Takushi&hl=en&as_sdt=40002&as_vis=1
narciso (82637e) — 11/19/2010 @ 7:54 pmI don’t argue the letter of the law is clear, and even includes for emphasis (why else?) the phrase, “no exceptions.” I do recognize though that Alaskan courts have chosen to “expand” election laws in the past.
It seems to me that the most promising argument to exclude any spelling errors was a federal approach. The announced and implemented policy certainly represents a substantive change in election laws, and Alaska is covered under the Voting Rights Act. Any change requires pre-clearance from the DOJ, and it appears permission was not sought for this one.
But the bad news is that even if all of Miller’s challenges are excluded from Murky’s total – including the many which appeared to be perfectly spelled and filled out – he still loses. Murky’s margin was provided by Democrats, perhaps seeking to strike a blow against Palin and/or the Tea Party. McAdams is getting what, 26% of the vote?. Even the sacrificial lambs who ran against Ted Stevens at the height of his power earned over 30%.
Estragon (ec6a4b) — 11/20/2010 @ 12:00 amThis seems to be the controlling precedent;
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2203153069610266193&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
narciso (82637e) — 11/20/2010 @ 4:58 ammust be a teabagger judge
'bagger (d9d0c6) — 11/20/2010 @ 6:23 amLisa Mukluks is the only true conservative in Alaska and Miller’s a fraud. I predict he’ll be frog – marched summarily for something I haven’t made up yet.
Comment by EPWJ aka TMIMITW (The Most Interesting Man In The World)
Dmac (498ece) — 11/20/2010 @ 7:34 amThe key to the election is the native corporations. They are very powerful and Lisa has kept the pipeline of pork flowing freely. They are also in charge of counting the ballots.
Mike K (568408) — 11/20/2010 @ 8:36 amnarcisco
What exactly do you think the case says that bears on this case?
All it seems to say to me is that the state can deny the ability to write in at all (although Kennedy dissented saying they should be forced to allow for that). i don’t get anything else out of it.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/20/2010 @ 9:15 am1. Yes, it is a poorly written statute. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy” applies to both the full name and the last name.
2. Let’s not forget that the statute provides that there will be “no exceptions,” as Estragon has pointed out.
3. We are still left with needing to interpret what is meant by “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy.”
4. Suppose an Alaskan files a write-in declaration of candidacy for some Alaskan office under his real name “Benjamin Siegel” (i.e., with only the first letter of each of his first and last name in upper case letters). All his friends and neighbors call him “Benjie.” During the campaign a whole bunch of folks, including many journalists, start referring to him as “Bugsy” because the candidate’s name is the same as a notoriously crazy, creative, reputedly murderous, founder of modern day Las Vegas.
5. No other candidate, write-in or otherwise, has a last name with any of these letters (upper or lower case) in it: “S,” a “G” or an “L.”
6. Which, if any, of the following votes should count for him?
a. Benjamin Siegel
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 9:46 amb. Benjamin Siegal
c. Benjamen Siegel
d. Benjemin Siegel
e. B. Siegel
f. BENJAMIN SIEGEL
g. SIEGEL
h. Benjie Siegel
i. Benjie Segel
j. Benjie
She has been their Senator for 8 years, it has been the family seat for thirty, who are they trying to kid; like Kennedy, Bush, Brown
[nick fixed. –Aaron]
narciso (82637e) — 11/20/2010 @ 9:56 amUsing the analysis I previously gave:
a, c, d, e, f, g, h
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/20/2010 @ 9:58 amMurkowski’s belief that her family owns that Senate seat has certainly caused an enormous mess.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/20/2010 @ 10:16 amSock puppet off, this really has become ‘two mockeries of two travesties of a sham’ if the election law, is a dead letter; than what follows from it. If Lisa prevails, it’s nothing less than
narciso (82637e) — 11/20/2010 @ 10:38 amthe sad process that has brought California down
from the promise that it once held. It means the end of reform, to any real domestic drilling capacity in this country;
Patterico
Why anything but A and maybe F?
I thought your position was “exact spelling only?”
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/20/2010 @ 10:55 amThe Alaskan mostly are a retarded lot, let them have their retarded senator.
AlaskaSucks (0692b1) — 11/20/2010 @ 11:20 amSPQR
Apparently so, Alaskans statewide have voted her in to office twice now
Those pesky voters
Note to Miller, shouldnt have refered to her as a prostitute
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/20/2010 @ 11:35 amShe’s Landrieu, with a Alaskan dialect, from the ’96 run against Woody, whose vote was also secured by fraud,
narciso (82637e) — 11/20/2010 @ 11:40 amPat, I get your position: A candidate gets a vote if, and only if, at least the last name is spelled correctly.
I disagree. In all of alternatives a-i, there is no doubt for whom the vote is being cast. Since there is a high likelihood that many voters have not actually seen the “declaration of candidacy” (or the letter of intent which write-in candidates actually file-see below), they are doing their best to express their intentions.
I think I can prove that Aaron, and you, Pat, are wrong by using your own logic.
Here we go: Despite the clear error in the grammar, you insist that the phrase “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy” applies to both the full name and the last name because otherwise, the clear INTENT of the drafters of the statute would be thwarted. Fine. If legislators, who are supposedly skilled at writing what they mean can be given the slack to have what they wrote interpreted in view of what they clearly intended, then voters, too, should be given the same slack.
I think you are giving Alaskan legislator’s a double dose of slack: write-in candidates do NOT file a “declaration of candidacy.” They file a “letter of intent.” See, AS 15.25.105. See also, http://www.elections.alaska.gov/doc/forms/A33.pdf.
So, the legislators got it wrong TWICE. Once grammatically, and the second time by referring to a form that NO write-in candidate files.
Yet, you still want to go by what the legislators intended.
Great. I say go by what the voters clearly intended in the same way you want to go by what the legistlators intended. So, no one gets “Lisa M.” votes (since there was another Lisa M___ write-in candidate), and no one should get a Lisa Mickeymouski vote. Anything reasonably close to Lisa Murkowski (phonetically or otherwise) should count for her.
It follows that in the question I posed (and in which I fell for the “declaration of candidacy” error when I just ever so clearly meant “letter of intent”), Benjamin Siegel should get ALL of votes a-i.
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 12:05 pmPS I was rooting for Miller.
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 12:10 pmnewsminer=Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.
Fritz (ac48cc) — 11/20/2010 @ 12:20 pmHow many mistakes should one be allowed, Ira? how do you know that they did not intend to vote for Lisa M?
JD (6e269c) — 11/20/2010 @ 12:26 pmIra,
I disagree with your formulation of my argument because you claim I rely on some unexpressed “intent” of the legislators. I do not; I am a Scalia-style textualist. In my view, the legal effect of a statute depends upon the message expressed in the text as construed by a reasonable audience. This does not mean hyperliteral readings are preferred. Reasonable ones are.
I think that the reasonable reading of the declaration of candidacy is the letter of intent even if it goes by a different name.
I think the reasonable reading of the language requires at least the last name to be spelled correctly for reasons I have already stated at length and do not care to repeat.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/20/2010 @ 12:46 pmJD, to whom were you referring when YOU wrote “Lisa M”?
When someone writes, “Lisa Mirkowski” on an Alaska ballot, I feel confident that the person means the current U.S. senator from that state.
By the way, JD, how many mistakes should the Alaska legislature be allowed in its write-in voting statutes?
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 12:46 pmPat,
You say, “In my view, the legal effect of a statute depends upon the message expressed in the text as construed by a reasonable audience.”
I agree. And, I think the same standard should be applied to the ballots!
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 12:49 pmIra- is there a LisaM on the ballot?
JD (6e269c) — 11/20/2010 @ 12:54 pmJD,
From http://www.elections.alaska.gov/ci_pg_cl_2010_genr.php#uss
Lisa M. Lackey (Republican) – Write-in
Lisa Murkowski (Republican) – Write-in
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 1:08 pmPO Box 100847
Anchorage, AK 99501
Candidate’s web site: http://www.lisamurkowski.com/
Ira,
I would ordinarily agree, but here the statute (as I construe it) requires the last name (at a minimum) to be spelled correctly … no exceptions.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/20/2010 @ 1:09 pmSo who does a vote for Lisa M go to, Ira? How many mistakes would you let someone make? Burkowski? Murcowski? Burcowsky? Misa M?
JD (6e269c) — 11/20/2010 @ 1:18 pmAaron,
My position is not exact spelling only on the first name, because of what I said here.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/20/2010 @ 1:29 pmJD and Pat,
1. JD, you have not answered my question: How many mistakes should the Alaska legislature be allowed in its write-in voting statutes?
2. JD, I already wrote that a vote for “Lisa M” goes to NO ONE.
3. Pat, I think you are acknowledging that the statute has at least TWO screw ups. Yet, you are willing to interpret “as it appears” as meaning “spelled exactly the same as.” I think that is a big leap. I consider myself to be a reasonable audience, and “Murkowski,” “Mirkowski,” “Murkowsky” and even “Murcowski” all “appear” the same to me.
4. One of the reasons we have judges is to have them make the call on which renditions by voters are writings of a name “as its appears” on some mysterious document the legislature SPELLS one place as “declaration of candidacy” and SPELLS it another place as “letter of intent.”
5. JD, did you write the names “Burkowski” and “Burcowsky” to prove the point that perfect should not be the enemy of the good?
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 1:40 pmNo, I asked you about those to see if you would count them. You answered my other question with a question which really is not an answer.
JD (6e269c) — 11/20/2010 @ 1:47 pmIt doesn’t go to anyone, it’s not specific enough,’
narciso (82637e) — 11/20/2010 @ 2:07 pmam I the only one, not crazy pills’ If you don’t know the name of the candidate you’re writing in, you have no business writing it in.
Nope. I think a “letter of intent” is one kind of “declaration of candidacy.” The only thing I acknowledge as a screw-up is the wording of the “as it appears” provision. I believe I can reasonably interpret that provision, but I recognize that there is an alternate interpretation. I reject it largely for the reasons Aaron gives in the post, about the laternate interpretation leading to a clearly absurd result.
Do you think those versions of the names are all written “as it appears” in the declaration of candidacy (specifically, the letter of intent)?
If so, then we simply disagree. I do not find that to be a reasonable interpretation. The words “as it appears” have to mean something. You are interpreting them to mean nothing.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/20/2010 @ 2:41 pmYes, we disagree.
The phrase “as it appears” does mean something, but it does not mean “spelled the same as.” According to dictionaries, “appear” can mean “look” or “seem.” So, “Mirk,” “Murko” should not count, but voters do not have to be spelling bee champs either. “Murkowski,” “Mirkowski,” “Murkowsky” and even “Murcowski” all “appear,” “look” or “seem” the same to me.
By the way, we are not debating how an ideal law should work. We are debating how to interpret the existing Alaska law. I know that you know that, Pat, but others might not.
And, as I said before, this is why we have judges. They would determine which write in vote “appears” the same as a name on the letter of intent.
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 3:26 pmWords mean something, unless you’re dealing with a “living vocabulary”.
AD-RtR/OS! (27a664) — 11/20/2010 @ 3:28 pmIra,
You say:
The same? Or similar?
Is there a difference in your mind?
Because, objectively speaking, those two concepts (“the same” and “similar”) are not . . . the same.
Although they are similar!
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/20/2010 @ 3:34 pmVery good points about “same” and “similar.”
However, you are the one introducing the word “similar.”
The phrase “as it appears” (or “as it looks” or “as it seems”) could conjure up either meaning (i.e., “same as” or “similar to).
You and I agree that “reasonable” should be used in interpretation. So, perhaps “as it appears” should be construed as “reasonably close to,” which is as likely a good interpretation as “spelled exactly the same as.”
It is my opinion that for purposes of the Alaska statute, “Mirkowski,” “Murkowsky” and even “Murcowski” all meet the standard set by “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy.”
Certainly, “Mirkowski,” “Murkowsky” and even “Murcowski” appear much closer to “Murkowski” than “declaration of candidacy” does to “letter of intent.”
Pat, you obviously have no doubt that “declaration of candidacy” was intended to mean “letter of intent.”
Pat, do you have any doubt that anyone who wrote in “Mirkowski,” “Murkowsky” or “Murcowski” intended to vote for Lisa Murkowski?
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 4:06 pmWell.
If you parse the statutes it’s quite clear that “letter of intent” is a subset of “declaration of candidacy” as the letter of intent is one type of document declaring a candidacy. I assume you’re not seriously contending to the contrary so I won’t prove that further.
“Murcowsky” is not a subset of “Murkowski.”
That said, what you are really saying is that the voter’s intent is quite clear when the voter writes “Murkowsky” — or, to use my standard, a reasonable audience would certainly read “Murkowsky” as signifying “Murkowski.”
I absolutely grant you that. And if the same interpretive standard were appropriate for analyzing both the statute and the ballots, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
But it isn’t.
The statute (as I interpret it) has a rule that requires more. The written-in name must be “as it appears” in the declaration of candidacy. There is no corresponding rule of strictness in construing the statute.
If there were a rule in the Alaska Constitution that all election statutes were always to be construed to allow maximum deference to voter intent, and that in the event of any ambiguity, the ambiguity was to be resolved in favor of voter intent, we would have a different case.
Instead, the relevant statute says there are no exceptions to the rule. Which suggests to me that the statute should be construed in favor of strictness.
So your last, final argument is to say that “as it appears” means “similar to” instead of “the same as.”
This is the point where I shrug my shoulders and rely on the old axiom that you can’t convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/20/2010 @ 4:39 pmHere is the real choice: In the Alaska write-in vote statute,
“as it appears” means (pick one):
(a) “spelled exactly the same as,” or
(b) “reasonably close to that”
Touché.
Ira (28a423) — 11/20/2010 @ 5:05 pmNo Semanticist would ever endorse door (b).
AD-RtR/OS! (27a664) — 11/20/2010 @ 5:12 pmWithout the words “as it appears” would the written-in name have to be reasonably close?
If so, what are those words doing there? Nothing?
Patterico (40eb37) — 11/22/2010 @ 7:51 pmThe phrase “as it appears” rules out a candidate’s claiming that spurious names are votes for him or her. There is no reason to jump all the way to an exact spelling of the name. And, if you were to make that leap, why not go the short extra distance and require the same rendition of upper case and lower case letters, as I alluded to in comment 18.
Ira (28a423) — 11/22/2010 @ 8:05 pmJD, your question about how many mistakes is allowable is irrelevant. The point is whether or not a reasonable audience is be able to construe for whom a vote is cast.
Ira (28a423) — 11/22/2010 @ 8:10 pmIs that a claim that you believe would be available to the candidate absent the inclusion of those three words?
Patterico (40eb37) — 11/22/2010 @ 8:11 pmSure it is relevant. Where would you draw the line? There has to be some cut off point for your flight of fancy where you get to try to divine the intent of the voter without asking the voter what their intent was.
JD (eb5afc) — 11/22/2010 @ 8:16 pmThe name should be spelled correctly, otherwise a writein has no point.
narciso (82637e) — 11/22/2010 @ 8:18 pmNo, that would be the point if intent of the voter were the only relevant consideration. The point is whether or not a reasonable audience is able to conclude that the voter has written the name (at least the last name) “as it appears” on the declaration of candidacy.
I happen to go by my middle name. My full name appears on my driver’s license. If I were given a document to sign, and told to sign it “as it appears” on my driver’s license, I would not have difficulty deciphering those instructions. If I asked “does that mean I have to type it or reproduce the font exactly?” I would be regarded as a smart-ass or moron.
Common sense. Reasonableness. This isn’t as hard as some try to make it sound.
Patterico (40eb37) — 11/22/2010 @ 8:23 pm“The phrase “as it appears” rules out a candidate’s claiming that spurious names are votes for him or her.”
Are spurious names names which are similar but not exact? How dissimilar do they have to be to become spurious?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/22/2010 @ 8:36 pmIf they did not include the phrase “as it appears” on the declaration, then it would be reasonable to interpret the statute to permit indirect references to the candidate, like writing in “re-elect sitting senator”
That would clearly evidence intent to vote for Lisa Murkowski, just like “Princess Lisa” or “governor daddy’s appointee” would evidence intent to vote for Lisa Murkowski.
If the statute did not provide any limitation on how the candidate must be described in the write-in portion of the ballot, then it would be reasonable to think that using entirely different words to signal intent to cast a ballot for Lisa Murkowski would be an accepted means of casting a ballot for that candidate. Maybe not the examples I gave above, but “Lisa M.” or “Senator Murkowski” or “that Murkowski woman” would be clear signals of intent to vote for Lisa Murkowski without being too weird, which would not be (IMO) sufficiently similar to the name as it appears on the declaration of candidacy.
The gold standard for casting a write-in vote is to fill in the oval and properly spell the candidate’s name and not fill in any other oval and not write anything marring, obscuring, or additional to the candidate’s name. Of those 4 requirements, the ovals are the easiest to regulate: they’re either filled in or they aren’t, and we don’t look to subjective intent with regard to oval-filling.
As far as the other elements are concerned, writing in the name accurately and not putting down additional material, there is a big more leeway, because writing a word has greater potential for ambiguity in the message than filling in an oval.
And to answer your question, if you signed your name “Patrick Fray,” I think that would be interpreted as a proper signature. I think it would bind you and it would bind the other party, to the same extent as an accurate signature. People misspell their name while signing things all the time. It’s all cursive and people don’t look to closely at it, so we tend not to notice.
Daryl Herbert (dcad46) — 11/22/2010 @ 9:34 pmSo your last, final argument is to say that “as it appears” means “similar to” instead of “the same as.”
My argument would be that a very similar but not exact rendition of the name should be interpreted as a clear, unambiguous signal of intent to have spelled the name correctly (which would be a proper vote) and therefore it should be interpreted as a proper vote.
Daryl Herbert (dcad46) — 11/22/2010 @ 9:39 pmhttp://www.redcounty.com/content/alaskas-gail-fenumiai-fox-guarding-hen-house
narciso (82637e) — 11/22/2010 @ 10:01 pm“My argument would be that a very similar but not exact rendition of the name”
Daryl Herbert – So your last final argument is a subjective standard which can be defined by different people evaluating ballots? That does sound like a Bush v. Gore issue.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/22/2010 @ 10:09 pmMaybe so. But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether I would have written my name “as it appears” on my driver’s license. Where it says John Patrick Frey.
Answer: no.
Would I still be bound? Sure.
Unless the legislature had a statute saying “contracts are binding only when affirmed by a signature that sets forth the signatory’s name as it appears on his or her driver’s license.”
In that case I would not be bound by “Patrick Fray.”
And a notary would tell me to sign again.
If I signed it “John Patrick Frey” but did not reproduce the size and font on the license with perfect accuracy, and tried to wriggle out of the contract on the basis, the judge would laugh and laugh and laugh.
And then sanction me. As he wiped the tears from his eyes.
Again: this is not hard. Common sense. Reasonableness. Where does all that go in these discussions?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/22/2010 @ 10:53 pmIt is an argument which does not grapple with the words “as it appears.”. Question dodged. Consider it re-asked.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/22/2010 @ 10:55 pm“Again: this is not hard. Common sense. Reasonableness. Where does all that go in these discussions?”
Well, common sense says that a vote •Lisa Mirkowski is a vote for Lisa Murkowski.
Pat, I think you keep ignoring the meaning that I (and I think Daryl) believe is the correct one for “as it appears on,” namely, “reasonably close to that on.” We are not ignoring the phrase “as it appears on,” nor are we using it to establish a standard that simply is not, er, SPELLED OUT at all in the statute.
Ira (28a423) — 11/23/2010 @ 8:30 amRe duplicate comments above: I didn’t do it, at least not on purpose.
[Fixed. We all do it now and then, Ira. No big whoop. –Aaron]
Ira (28a423) — 11/23/2010 @ 8:35 amSo now “as it appears” has been bastardized to mean “something reasonably similar”. Where can you buy these dictionaries?
JD (f9d82f) — 11/23/2010 @ 8:39 amWell no wonder they signed on to tax payer funded ESCR and green energy, also unicorns, if plain speech doesn’t mean anything
narciso (82637e) — 11/23/2010 @ 9:12 amJD – Do those Alaska ballots have something reasonably similar to chads?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/23/2010 @ 9:17 amNo, it’s a signature of the holder of the dynastic seat for 30 years, how does one forget that.
narciso (82637e) — 11/23/2010 @ 9:22 am“Again: this is not hard. Common sense. Reasonableness. Where does all that go in these discussions?”
– Patterico
Oh, I dunno… VICIOUS INTENT PIRACY, MAYBE!!!???!!?!
You make me sick.
Leviticus (20cc2a) — 11/23/2010 @ 9:56 amPatterico @38
I respectfully disagree.
If you write Lisa Murkowski you are fine.
If you write Murkowki, you are also fine.
but if you endeavor to write the first name you have to spell it right. that is how i interpret the statute.
of course its kind of moot because i am pretty sure no one had trouble spelling Lisa.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2010 @ 12:29 pm