Report: 98% of write-in ballots counted thus far are for Murkowski

posted at 5:06 pm on November 10, 2010 by Allahpundit

Only an anecdotal report (from a Democrat, no less), but if that rate holds true, it’d mean almost 2,000 votes knocked off her presumptive lead. Not an insignificant amount.

Here’s the important part, though:

Chip Thoma, observing for the Alaska Democratic Party, tells me that around 98 percent of the write-in ballots cast appear to be for Lisa Murkowski. Roughly 10 percent of those are being challenged by the Miller campaign on spelling grounds.

But Thoma said the Division of Elections is overruling 90 percent of those challenges. The Miller campaign than re-challenges. Those ballots will get another review, with the final say going to the certification board (or the courts.)

Thoma said he was struck by the large percentage of write-ins that were perfectly cast for Murkowski, with the oval filled in and her first and last names spelled correctly.

Murky’s presumptive lead at the moment is a little more than 11,000 votes with 90,000 or so write-in ballots to be counted. If (a) she loses a few thousand due to two percent of write-ins being for other candidates and (b) Miller picks up another thousand or two thousand votes from the rest of the absentees that have yet to be counted, then yeah, the election might very well turn on how the courts deal with those 10 percent of write-ins for Murkowski that Miller is challenging. What kind of challenges are we talking about here, you ask? Dude:

“Most of them are minor misspellings,” Thoma said.

He said the misspellings tend to be in the first syllable of Lisa Murkowski’s name. Some people wrote “Mercowski” or “Mircowski.”

The elections director has reportedly already ruled that ballots filled out for “Morcowski” won’t count, a decision being challenged by Team Murky. You’ve all already seen the story posted in Headlines last night, I take it, about Team Miller suing to disqualify each and every ballot that doesn’t have Murkowski’s name spelled absolutely correctly. The statute does seem to point Miller’s way on that, as Patterico explains: The law requires that the name be filled in “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy” and that “there are no exceptions” to that rule. Which means, in theory, that all 10 percent of the ballots Miller’s challenging today are headed down the toilet.

But wait, what about the “voter intent” standard that’s virtually universally applied by courts in cases involving disputed ballots? Funny thing — that’s never been tested in a write-in case in Alaska:

On Friday, Ms. Fenumiai pointed to two previous Alaska cases in which ballots were counted for a candidate when voter intent was clear, even if the ballot wasn’t filled out correctly. Those cases didn’t involve write-in ballots, however…

Election officials have also said they wouldn’t count a vote for “Lisa” or “Lisa M.” in Ms. Murkowski’s favor. When asked to comment on that, Mr. McKeever said, “We have not gotten any indication from the Division of Elections about the standards they’re going to apply, but we expect that they’ll comply with Alaska law.”

Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School, said states typically interpret election rules so they maximize the chances voter intent is considered. Alaska, in particular, “has generally taken the view that statutes should be liberally construed,” he said.

It’s hard to “liberally construe” a statute that says “no exceptions.” I think you’ll see one of two things happen here if this race really does come down to a stack of ballots marked “Markowski” or “Murkowsky” or whatever. One: The state supreme court could decide that the statute is unconstitutional because the right to vote implies some sort of “voter intent” standard. That’d be an awfully sketchy ruling given that the state constitution says voting standards shall be prescribed by law, but we’ve seen stranger interpretations before and, after all, courts don’t like to see people disenfranchised when everyone knows who they meant to vote for. Two: In theory, the legislature could act here to amend the statute and add a “voter intent” standard to the provision cited by Patterico. I’ll leave it to con law experts to argue whether that would in itself be unconstitutional as an ex post facto law, but the political maneuvering would be fascinating. Democratic legislators might push for it just to put Sean Parnell, the Republican governor, and other GOP legislators on the spot. It’d be awfully hard, I think, to explain to the public — 60 percent of whom didn’t vote for Joe Miller — that a Senate race should turn on whether someone spelled “Murkowski” with an “e” instead of a “u.” Fun times ahead!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Wow, and she didn’t get writer’s cramp? She must be some kind of superwoman.

Ward Cleaver on November 10, 2010 at 5:09 PM

No surprise there at all. No reason for Miller to be a write-in if he is on the ballot. Murkowski was the only major write-in running. Really too soon to call.

volsense on November 10, 2010 at 5:09 PM

The people have spoken.

Shame for Joe Miller.

Shame for Alaska.

Shame for America.

UltimateBob on November 10, 2010 at 5:10 PM

It’s hard to “liberally construe” a statute that says “no exceptions.”

But they’ll find a way, I’m sure.

Just like certain rights that say “Congress shall make no law” have been interpreted to mean “Congress shall do whatever the hell it wants”.

amerpundit on November 10, 2010 at 5:10 PM

If it comes down to misspellings while the intent is clear, Miller needs to “man up” and concede.

ButterflyDragon on November 10, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I really, really dislike that woman. Thanks bunches, Alaska!
The ballots should be counted in accordance with the law. If it’s misspelled, it should go.

changer1701 on November 10, 2010 at 5:12 PM

If a voter is too lazy to spell their candidates name correctly why does intent matter? They certainly don’t take their vote serious enough to get the simplest part of the process correct, so their intent is clearly in question.

csdeven on November 10, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Technically, the statute requires her name “as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy” or the “last name” to be written in. There’s no requirement, if only the last name is written, that it be “as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy”.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:13 PM

If it comes down to misspellings while the intent is clear, Miller needs to “man up” and concede.

ButterflyDragon on November 10, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Using that logic we probably would have had President Al Gore.

Subjective canvassing boards interpreting “voter intent” is not what I want to have deciding elections. It was what we cost us the governorship in WA in 2004 and Norm Coleman’s senate seat in 2006.

If you can’t vote properly according to the law, your vote shouldn’t count.

Norwegian on November 10, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Looks like Murk will be a Senator for a long time especially if she goes up against Miller again.

She’ll lose the primary to him and she’ll go the write in route again. They’ll split the republican vote and enough dems will vote for her cause of the Palin connection to Miller for the easy win.

LurkerDood on November 10, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Thoma said he was struck by the large percentage of write-ins that were perfectly cast for Murkowski, with the oval filled in and her first and last names spelled correctly.

Oh trust me – RINOs can be super effective at educating the masses if their jobs are at stake. But against the evils of Big Government? Not so much.

TheRightMan on November 10, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Using that logic we probably would have had President Al Gore.

Subjective canvassing boards interpreting “voter intent” is not what I want to have deciding elections. It was what we cost us the governorship in WA in 2004 and Norm Coleman’s senate seat in 2006.

If you can’t vote properly according to the law, your vote shouldn’t count.

Norwegian on November 10, 2010 at 5:14 PM

There’s a difference between the situation where there’s a question whether a chad was punched out or a mark was made for a particular candidate and a situation where someone wrote 98% of someone’s name correctly. The intent is a whole lot more clear in the latter case.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:17 PM

What about the business of posting the write in candidates names at the polling sites per the Mur/Mer/Mircowski campaign, even though that appeared to violate the voting law? It would seem to me that if you got the correct spelling available to you at the voting site, that there is no justification for not getting the name right.

Isn’t this a case of having your cake and eating it too?

parke on November 10, 2010 at 5:17 PM

UltimateBob on November 10, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Yup.

OmahaConservative on November 10, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I fail to see how someone who lost a primary can even be a write in.

ORconservative on November 10, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Technically, the statute requires her name “as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy” or the “last name” to be written in. There’s no requirement, if only the last name is written, that it be “as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy”.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:13 PM

You’re right. Nice catch.

crr6 on November 10, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Thoma said he was struck by the large percentage of write-ins that were perfectly cast for Murkowski, with the oval filled in and her first and last names spelled correctly.

“Oddly enough, most have the same handwriting,” he added.

lorien1973 on November 10, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Sarah Palin’s Lisa Murkowksi’s Alaska

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Looks like the machine may win again. We just can’t seem to get rid of those folks. Her every move from here on in should be scrutinized and publicized.

Kissmygrits on November 10, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I don’t believe that 98% number. Seems a smidgen high.

SouthernGent on November 10, 2010 at 5:22 PM

You’re right. Nice catch.

crr6 on November 10, 2010 at 5:19 PM

And it would have been even more clear if it said that it had to be “exactly as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy”.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:22 PM

So a woman who can’t get her favored candidate across the line in her own state despite the opponent being a write-in establishment candidate in a can capture the country in 2 years?

*drumroll!*

rightistliberal on November 10, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Seeing as how Sarah Palin’s backed candidate got smoked in Palin’s backyard is her endorsement really worth less than a bucket of warm spit?

burnitup on November 10, 2010 at 5:23 PM

How many of these write ins were done my Daddys Princess, and her team?

capejasmine on November 10, 2010 at 5:24 PM

ACK. Ack ack ACK-ack.
/mars attacks

stevezilla on November 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Allahpundit sez:

It’d be awfully hard, I think, to explain to the public — 60 percent of whom didn’t vote for Joe Miller — that a Senate race should turn on whether someone spelled “Murkowski” with an “e” instead of a “u.” Fun times ahead!

The DemComms would have no such compunctions. They would just go ahead and do what they need to to gain the seat.

IronDioPriest on November 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM

I’d rather look at this than her.

OmahaConservative on November 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Looks like our devious misspelling campaign may have had an effect! Cackle-cackle!

slickwillie2001 on November 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM

You suppose Sarah Palin feels like Al Gore in 2000? Not being able to carry their own home state. Pathetic. Goodbye Sarah.

burnitup on November 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM

So… “Primaries” are now meaningless?

VastRightWingConspirator on November 10, 2010 at 5:26 PM

From an update to the original article:

The Miller campaign challenged 28 of those and Fenumiai overruled the challenge on all but five of those. One challenge overturned was for a ballot that said “Lisa, Murkowski.”

If this is true, shame on the Miller campaign. Name spelled correctly, but a stray mark that might or might not be a comma and they challenge it? Shows to me that Miller is desperate for power…

I didn’t want Murkowski to win. But any Miller victory that includes such petty objections shows he deserves to lose.

AngusMc on November 10, 2010 at 5:26 PM

There is some precedent for the standardless counting of election ballots…. Bush v. Gore

Voter intent is protected by the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did what it was supposed to do in Bush v. Gore and applied its ruling to that one case/controversy…. meaning Bush v. Gore isn’t supposed to be applied to any other cases…. evah.

mmoran0226 on November 10, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Thoma said he was struck by the large percentage of write-ins that were perfectly cast for Murkowski, with the oval filled in and her first and last names spelled correctly.

Hmmmm . . . that is interesting. I remember a caller from Alaska calling into either Rush or Levin and stating that Murkowski had a rather large campaign gathering just prior to the election and handed out bracelets with her name spelled on them. The caller said he thought that was illegal since it was just days before the election. I wonder if that explains the perfect spelling?

KickandSwimMom on November 10, 2010 at 5:26 PM

It’d be awfully hard, I think, to explain to the public …that a Senate race should turn on whether someone spelled “Murkowski” with an “e” instead of a “u.” Fun times ahead!

Feck Merkowski.

pain train on November 10, 2010 at 5:27 PM

You suppose Sarah Palin feels like Al Gore in 2000? Not being able to carry their own home state. Pathetic. Goodbye Sarah.

burnitup on November 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Nice try. Level 1 and you crashed and burned.

You’re gonna have to do better than that.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 5:27 PM

And it would have been even more clear if it said that it had to be “exactly as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy”.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Yeah, that’s the thing. I don’t think I’d read that as disenfranchising someone because of a minor misspelling unless the statute were crystal clear on the matter. And given the long history of the Alaskan courts resolving ballot disputes based off of voter intent, it’s entirely possible that the statute was drafted with the assumption that write-ins would not be void due to minor misspellings. If the legislature had intended some sort of formalist departure from the general case law on the matter, they should said so more clearly.

crr6 on November 10, 2010 at 5:27 PM

The law needs to be followed and both sides needs to say so.

AndrewsDad on November 10, 2010 at 5:28 PM

It’d be awfully hard, I think, to explain to the public … that a Senate race should turn on whether someone spelled “Murkowski” with an “e” instead of a “u.”

In a sane world, it would be awfully hard to explain to the public how a Senate race should turn because a sore loser abandoned her party and gamed the system to extend her personal power grab a little longer.

KS Rex on November 10, 2010 at 5:30 PM

The trolls here could care less whether Murkowski wins. What they really care about is somehow discrediting Palin. Boy, that really tells you something about Palin’s clout – no matter how much the trolls deny it.

KickandSwimMom on November 10, 2010 at 5:30 PM

It’d be awfully hard, I think, to explain to the public — 60 percent of whom didn’t vote for Joe Miller — that a Senate race should turn on whether someone spelled “Murkowski” with an “e” instead of a “u.” Fun times ahead!

This is part of our problem. Democrats wouldn’t care. A seat is a seat is a seat. We’ll end up playing nice now and then regretting it when Princess Lisa goes squishy and votes Dem.

You win the seat and smooth things over later.

amerpundit on November 10, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Miller was hit by every negative story they could dig up as he ran. He was never able to shake it. There was a lot of dirty dealings no doubt, but that seems to be the Alaskan way. Odds are Murky wins, but I for one hope they strip her of every “senior” position she held. Wishful thinking on my part I know.

sandee on November 10, 2010 at 5:30 PM

I don’t see how Joe wins this. I think it’s over.

However… wouldn’t wearing a bracelet with LisaCow’s name on it be considered electioneering inside the polling place? Just like wearing a T-shirt with a candidates name on it inside the polling place.

dforston on November 10, 2010 at 5:30 PM

The ex post facto prohibition has generally not been applied to civil legislation, but generally only to criminal laws. Summary here.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 10, 2010 at 5:31 PM

You’re right. Nice catch.

crr6 on November 10, 2010 at 5:19 PM

All that means is that it’s okay to write in just the last name without the first name. It makes no sense to say that you have to write the full name letter-perfect but can just approximate so long as you’re only writing in the last name.

Allahpundit on November 10, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Boy, that really tells you something about Palin’s clout – no matter how much the trolls deny it.

KickandSwimMom on November 10, 2010 at 5:30 PM

AMEN, Mom!

OmahaConservative on November 10, 2010 at 5:32 PM

The trolls here could care less whether Murkowski wins. What they really care about is somehow discrediting Palin. Boy, that really tells you something about Palin’s clout – no matter how much the trolls deny it.

KickandSwimMom on November 10, 2010 at 5:30 PM

No. Care most about getting Palinistas worked up.

rightistliberal on November 10, 2010 at 5:33 PM

The people have spoken.
Shame for Joe Miller.
Shame for Alaska.
Shame for America.
UltimateBob on November 10, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Agreed. And shame on the Republican leadership if they don’t strip her of her committee leadership assignments.

KS Rex on November 10, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Alaska needs a ‘sore loser’ rule badly. Move registration deadline up to the day before the first primary. That said states have the ability to make up whatever rule they want for the election of their own senators. As long as they aren’t in violation of the 14th amendment they really ought to be followed to the letter. No making exceptions just because your name is Murkowski.

clement on November 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM

burnitup on November 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Note to the Romney campaign: Wishful thinking is not a strategy.

Norwegian on November 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I can see the argument that Mircowski is close enough if there was no voter list handed out. But when a voter list is handed out with the correct spelling and even 1 letter is mis-spelled, sorry voter, you’re not getting the benefit of the doubt.

angryed on November 10, 2010 at 5:36 PM

I am just so sick of the political dynasty families.
Is the public that stupid that we keep on electing mediocrity based on last names?

OmahaConservative on November 10, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Technically, the statute requires her name “as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy” or the “last name” to be written in. There’s no requirement, if only the last name is written, that it be “as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy”.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:13 PM

You’re right. Nice catch.

crr6 on November 10, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Look at the troll talking to its own sockpuppet.

fossten on November 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM

All that means is that it’s okay to write in just the last name without the first name. It makes no sense to say that you have to write the full name letter-perfect

Well it doesn’t actually say that. You’re just reading that into it.

Allahpundit on November 10, 2010 at 5:32 PM

I agree that particular reading wouldn’t make much sense (you need to write the full name letter-perfect, but the last name may contain errors). But if you live by textualism, you die by textualism.

crr6 on November 10, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Technically, the statute requires her name “as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy” or the “last name” to be written in. There’s no requirement, if only the last name is written, that it be “as set forth in the Declaration of Candidacy”.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:13 PM

It’s BS like this why we have a 17,000 page tax code.

angryed on November 10, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Alaska needs a ‘sore loser’ rule badly.

At first I thought you meant Joe Miller. I might disagree with most of what Murkowski stands for, but all she did was put the decision in the hands of the voters, who apparently have agreed with her.

How is winning an election considered being a sore loser?

AngusMc on November 10, 2010 at 5:38 PM

t’d be awfully hard, I think, to explain to the public …that a Senate race should turn on whether someone spelled “Murkowski” with an “e” instead of a “u.” Fun times ahead!

Harder than explaining that they’re going to be represented by a candidate that they had actually successfully defeated in the primary to begin with?

Midas on November 10, 2010 at 5:40 PM

You’re right. Nice catch.

crr6 on November 10, 2010 at 5:19 PM
All that means is that it’s okay to write in just the last name without the first name. It makes no sense to say that you have to write the full name letter-perfect but can just approximate so long as you’re only writing in the last name.

Allahpundit on November 10, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Read the statute. If they had meant to say what you think it said, then they should have written the statute differently.

Here’s what it says: “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.”

Here’s what you wish it said: “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 of the candidate or the last name of the candidate, in each case as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, is written in the space provided.”

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Even if the law were not as clear as it is, the fact that there was a list with her name on it present at the polling place invalidates any attempt to determine intent.

If her name is there, and you don’t copy it down properly, then it is just as likely you were voting for the person you wrote down. It is impossible to tell without asking the voter. Therefore, the ballot is too unclear to count for anyone.

CrankyTRex on November 10, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Yes, that would be much clearer, but since your reading of it makes the statute inane, it’ll be read by courts the way I’ve suggested.

Allahpundit on November 10, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM
Yes, that would be much clearer, but since your reading of it makes the statute inane, it’ll be read by courts the way I’ve suggested.

Allahpundit on November 10, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Wanna bet?

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Lisa Murkowski: Elektid by peepul who kant spel gud.

raybury on November 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Angus – “all she did was put the decision in the hands of the voters” – you mean the voters who had already decided that they *didn’t* want her?

That decision by those voters apparently didn’t mean sh1t to her, hence the ‘sore loser’ moniker certainly seems appropriate at that level at minimum.

Midas on November 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I hate the republican party machine!

MCGIRV on November 10, 2010 at 5:48 PM

No. Care most about getting Palinistas worked up.

rightistliberal on November 10, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Yeah right. You know, I love to get liberals worked up, but I don’t hang around on liberal sites furiously typing inane posts like you, Burnitup, Crr6, etc. Your behaviour seems weird doesn’t it? That’s because it is.

KickandSwimMom on November 10, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM
Yes, that would be much clearer, but since your reading of it makes the statute inane, it’ll be read by courts the way I’ve suggested.

Allahpundit on November 10, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Wanna bet?

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Given the corrupt nature of Alaska courts, I’d take Jimbo’s interpretation. Not that it makes any sense, but if it help’s Princess, the courts will see it that way.

angryed on November 10, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Ughhh helps not help’s.

angryed on November 10, 2010 at 5:49 PM

You know. Since Lisa Murlaska pulled this off, this sets a terrible precedent for future elections everywhere.

Now we’ll have every close primary race end with the loser thinking they can win as a write-in candidate.

BAD NEWS.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM

If she wins, do NOT forget about all the Republican senators who allowed her to keep her seniority and committee position. They helped circumvent the will of the Alaska republicans that put Miller over the top in his primary, and thus should be viewed as part of the problem.

thirteen28 on November 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM

I can’t believe our tax dollars go toward paying for people to come here, and offer inane babble, and to instigate nit picking, and arguments. *sigh*

capejasmine on November 10, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Miller will probably concede before it gets to the point where specific spellings are challenged.

This sets a very, very bad precedent for 2012. All I can hope is that every person who loses a primary and goes the write-in route gets a heartily different result than old Murk

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM
Yes, that would be much clearer, but since your reading of it makes the statute inane, it’ll be read by courts the way I’ve suggested.

Allahpundit on November 10, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Wanna bet?

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:46 PM
Given the corrupt nature of Alaska courts, I’d take Jimbo’s interpretation. Not that it makes any sense, but if it help’s Princess, the courts will see it that way.

angryed on November 10, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Not necessarily corrupt. I think courts will generally want to give effect to voters’ clearly expressed intent, and will be looking for a way to do that. The ambiguity in the statute could give the courts that “out”.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:52 PM

You know. Since Lisa Murlaska may have possibly pulled this off, this sets a terrible precedent for future elections everywhere.

Now we’ll have every close primary race end with the loser thinking they can win as a write-in candidate.

BAD NEWS.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM

You forgot that little part.

Brian1972 on November 10, 2010 at 5:53 PM

when the write in vote beats the other two candidates that is a clue.

For whatever reason, self inflicted or otherwise, Lisa and her pedigree, and pork, are popular in AK…Miller may pull it out on technical grounds (I doubt it) but regardless, the message of AK voters is that Miller isn’t that popular.

The really great news is that the Dim lost badly in a three way race.

r keller on November 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Buh bye Miller!!

Your campaign stunk!!!

PappyD61 on November 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM

If she wins, do NOT forget about all the Republican senators who allowed her to keep her seniority and committee position. They helped circumvent the will of the Alaska republicans that put Miller over the top in his primary, and thus should be viewed as part of the problem.

thirteen28 on November 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Oh, we haven’t forgotten. John Thune is now permanently off my list of 2012 contenders I could support.

Norwegian on November 10, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Alaska -the new Masssachusetts!

Don L on November 10, 2010 at 5:56 PM

You know. Since Lisa Murlaska may have possibly pulled this off, this sets a terrible precedent for future elections everywhere.

Now we’ll have every close primary race end with the loser thinking they can win as a write-in candidate.

BAD NEWS.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Bad News? That’s great news. Unless, of course, you want elections to be the exclusive property of the two major parties. Most people hope there are alternatives.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Not necessarily corrupt. I think courts will generally want to give effect to voters’ clearly expressed intent, and will be looking for a way to do that. The ambiguity in the statute could give the courts that “out”.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:52 PM

And I’m sure if it was Miller looking for help they’d give it to him too. If you believe that I have a nice bridge to sell you. Come on man, even you can see what’s going on here is the good old boy network at work. The Alaska machine makes Chicago look like amateurs when it comes to rigging elections.

angryed on November 10, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Bad News? That’s great news. Unless, of course, you want elections to be the exclusive property of the two major parties. Most people hope there are alternatives.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:57 PM

You’ve jumped crr6′s shark.

angryed on November 10, 2010 at 5:59 PM

98% for Moo Cow!..I thought my boy Mickey Mouse would do better in the write-in section..:)

Dire Straits on November 10, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Bad News? That’s great news. Unless, of course, you want elections to be the exclusive property of the two major parties. Most people hope there are alternatives.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Guess what, Jimbo. All three people in this race belonged to one of two major parties.

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 6:01 PM

You know. Since Lisa Murlaska may have possibly pulled this off, this sets a terrible precedent for future elections everywhere.

Now we’ll have every close primary race end with the loser thinking they can win as a write-in candidate.

BAD NEWS.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM

You forgot that little part.

Brian1972 on November 10, 2010 at 5:53 PM

I thought of that too, but then, it can work both ways. The conservative could lose to a RINO in a close primary but may launch a successful write-in campaign.
Lets face it, more and more people are thinking of themselves. We’re living in the age of selfishness.
Loyalty, duty and honor are things laughed at so why should we be surprised to find so many narcissists among us.

JellyToast on November 10, 2010 at 6:02 PM

So who is voting for her . . . Democrats and liberals. If she’s elected RINO will take on a whole new meaning.

rplat on November 10, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Bad News? That’s great news. Unless, of course, you want elections to be the exclusive property of the two major parties. Most people hope there are alternatives.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 5:57 PM

There were 2 republicans and one Democrat running in that Party Jimbo3.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 6:03 PM

MITCH MCCONNELL’s Three Strikes:
1) Supporting Murkowski
2) Supporting earmarks
3) Supporting Iraq withdrawal

And we are letting that RINO clown lead the GOP in the year of the Tea Party. Get mad, get organized, and demand conservative leadership in the Senate. Coburn or bust

Raisedbywolves on November 10, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Well, there’s nothing a huge section of her party ostracizing her for 4 years can’t do. Make her completely unwelcome.

Coronagold on November 10, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Murkowski has exhibited a side of the establisment republicans that is not a pretty picture. Still alot of work by republicans to flush these “entitled” individuals from their ranks. Without establishment GOP insiders interfering, Miller and O’Donnell had chances to be elected. Their refusal to fully support the nominee winner of their primaries was backstabbing and nothing more.

volsense on November 10, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Well, there’s nothing a huge section of her party ostracizing her for 4 years can’t do. Make her completely unwelcome.

Coronagold on November 10, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Why is she even in the party?

The Democrats voted for her, let them have her.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 6:06 PM

They can’t count “Lisa M” because a Lisa M. Lackey filed to run as a write-in.

Thank you, Ms. Lackey.

Wethal on November 10, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Guess what, Jimbo. All three people in this race belonged to one of two major parties.

Missy on November 10, 2010 at 6:01 PM

There were 2 republicans and one Democrat running in that Party Jimbo3.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 6:03 PM

There was one official Republican candidate, one Dem candidate and one Republican who was not the official Republican candidate.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Nothing good can come from this woman. She’s a curse for whowever claims her. She’s a curse herself. I see a sad end.

rrpjr on November 10, 2010 at 6:10 PM

You know. Since Lisa Murlaska pulled this off, this sets a terrible precedent for future elections everywhere.

Now we’ll have every close primary race end with the loser thinking they can win as a write-in candidate.

BAD NEWS.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM

True, and this one will be relatively polite. If we ever have a write-in democratic against a Republican it’ll get vicious. US Supreme Court for sure.

slickwillie2001 on November 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM

There was one official Republican candidate, one Dem candidate and one Republican who was not the official Republican candidate.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM

And you don’t see a problem with an official who after losing their parties candidacy slot refusing to recognize the results?

Murkowski just took the Primary run all the way to November 3rd. She couldn’t convince her own party to send her back to washington DC in the time slot permitted by the Rules SHE CHOSE TO FOLLOW.

This precedent is a bad one to follow. But now that Queen Lisa Murlaska II has proven that primaries don’t matter anymore, these jerks will campaign all the way to November 3rd.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Try to split that hair just a smidge more, to prevent admitting you were wrong.

Hehe.

cs89 on November 10, 2010 at 6:16 PM

The way I read it, “Lizard Mukowski” – count it. “Lisa Morkowsky” – don’t count it. The last name has to be as it appears on the candidates paperwork, but the first name, not so much. I guess we’ll see how the courts deal with this, and the ballots on which confused folks wrote in “Joe Miller” too.

forest on November 10, 2010 at 6:17 PM

If it comes down to misspellings while the intent is clear, Miller needs to “man up” and concede.

ButterflyDragon on November 10, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Yup.

The Ugly American on November 10, 2010 at 6:17 PM

92,528 x 98% x 90% = 81,609 while Miller has 81,195.

At this rate, Miller’s goose is cooked.

Kermit on November 10, 2010 at 6:19 PM

There was one official Republican candidate, one Dem candidate and one Republican who was not the official Republican candidate.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM
And you don’t see a problem with an official who after losing their parties candidacy slot refusing to recognize the results?

Murkowski just took the Primary run all the way to November 3rd. She couldn’t convince her own party to send her back to washington DC in the time slot permitted by the Rules SHE CHOSE TO FOLLOW.

This precedent is a bad one to follow. But now that Queen Lisa Murlaska II has proven that primaries don’t matter anymore, these jerks will campaign all the way to November 3rd.

portlandon on November 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Not if they think they can win.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 6:20 PM

I think Miller may just have a case, from this quote:

Update, 12:15 p.m.

There have been questions from the ballot observers about the criteria Division of Elections Director Gail Fenumiai is using to rule on the Miller campaign challenges of Murkowski ballots.

Here’s what Fenumiai told me:

“If I can pronounce the name by the way it’s spelled, that’s the standard I’m using.”

Read more: http://community.adn.com/adn/node/154249#ixzz14vOLVeAB

Really? That’s the standard, that meets Alaska’s election law?

cs89 on November 10, 2010 at 6:21 PM

So who is voting for her . . . Democrats and liberals. If she’s elected RINO will take on a whole new meaning.

rplat on November 10, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Upinak voted for her, I’m pretty sure. I don’t think Upinak is a RINO.

Jimbo3 on November 10, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2