for the last 25 years or so, the courts have ruled that voter intent overruled technicalities...
Courts in other states, with differing sets of legal guidelines spelled out by their respective state legislatures have ruled that way yes... the language the Alaska Legislature spelled out though makes it more muddy in my opinion. (For example, in New Mexico, I think, it was a similiar issue, and their statute spelled out voter intent)
I will admit, I have no looked at any case law in Alaska on this issue, but the statutory language is clear, and it is not clear that rulings that support voter intent on your standard ballot would even apply to a write-in ballot.
That questions is up in the air.
Do we want a government based on laws...with no brains behind the laws?
Obviously we all want laws with "brains" behind them, however it is up to the Legislature to write those laws, and the Courts to uphold the laws as written.
And more, do you want to be the guy who wins the way he would have to..with less votes, but winning based on spelling...?
I saw another argument from Miller that said the following:
"Prior to the election, people commented on radio stations and in the comment sections in blogs and newspaper stories that they would deliberately incorrectly write-in a variation of “Murkowski” as a protest. They did so knowing that Murkowski was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a “spelling bee” campaign, replete with wrist bands, pencils and tattoos, all to educate the voters on proper spelling.
Why was this done? Because even Murkowski had read the law and knew that it required proper spelling — “No exceptions.” So protest voters were trying to send a message to the candidate."
If this proves accurate, who is to say that "voter intent" was not a protest vote, knowing it would not be counted? Perhaps that is why the Legislature put the law in place that they did?
If you where in his place, and knew that for a fact, many more voted for the other person, but if you got rid of some for spelling errors ( easy on a name like hers) or would you personally say you know what, I will listen to what the people want and let the real winner win, and not try to dance on technicalities.
I would ask the law to be upheld.
I think its pretty pathetic...its wrong to try to win a election with fake votes for you...
Who is to say that those votes that were spelled wrong were not "fake" or protest votes? I don't think that would really fly in court, but it is interesting all the same...
He might be able to argue that his rights were violated by changing election law in the middle of an election under some kind of due process claim...not sure how they would fly either, but would be interesting.
but its even worse trying to just take peoples real votes away from them...If he wants to show that it he against the politics of Washington and all that crap the tea party normally puts out...he sure has a funny way of showing it.
I will say it again, I do not care who wins the election ultimately, but the rule of law needs to be upheld here. Miller's suit has merit in my view, and I think it is the correct move to let a judge decide on those merits.
