Let's Offer Alaska Back To The Russians - CHEAP

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

But Thoma said the Division of Elections is overruling 90% 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.

I'm not sure if that last comment was meant as a suggestion of state-fabricated Madcowsky votes or a slam on Alaskan literacy.  Probably both.

But if Madcowsky is getting 98% of the write-ins - a not-unreasonable percentage - that would leave Miller 9,000 votes behind.  Challenging every tenth one of those 96,000+ write-in votes puts Miller's maximum gain at 9,600+ votes.  Even in Alaska, six hundred votes isn't much of a margin, and that's his best-case scenario.  If the Madcowsky Division of Elections is snuffing nine out of every ten challenges, well, you do the math.

Yes, yes, the idea is to get it to the Madcowsky courts and Alaska's suddenly inconveniently strict ballot interpretation guidelines:

At first glance, this might seem overly formalistic and harsh. Say a voter intends to vote for Lisa Murkowski, but writes in “Lisa Murkowsky.” Miller is saying that shouldn’t count as a vote for Murkowski?

Correct — and it looks to me like he’s right. And should be.

Miller’s legal papers, which you can read here (.pdf), argue that, under Alaska law, a write-in candidate’s name must be written “as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy.” The filing quotes legislative language saying:

The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.

As the Al Franken recount showed, recounts are messy propositions — and depending on the standard you choose, it can sometimes be quite difficult to interpret a ballot. (A good set of examples from the Franken recount is discussed here.) If the Alaska Legislature chose to set out clear rules to avoid such a situation, I say more power to them....

I haven’t examined the case law, but the statutory language seems crystal clear. Even if, as I have heard, Alaska applies an “intent of the voter” standard as to your standard ballot markings, I’m not sure the same case law would govern write-in ballots, in the face of such clear rules....

It’s a formalistic approach, to be sure. But a degree of formalism is absolutely essential to making law work.

Sorry, Lisa. Your illiterate voters should not have their votes counted. The Legislature has spoken.

This is the legal ground upon which Joe Miller is making the last stand Luella Madcowsky has forced him to make.  I would personally be appalled if he was pulling this shit under any other circumstances, but this is a cesspool that the Crown Princess of the Last Frontier created and owns lock, stock, and septic tank.  She chose to try to hang onto that Senate seat "by any means necessary"; one cannot fairly knock Joe Miller for playing by those same non-rules.

But seriously, folks, since when do Legislatures have the last word on the law?  You can see this coming a mile away, cancha?:

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.

The law says what the law says - except when King Frank's little powder princess needs it to say something else, in which case the law says whatever Luella wants it to say, and the Alaska Mafia's robed henchmen will deliver it.  It's just a matter of time.