Tea party candidate Joe Miller attempts to block "write in" votes over spelling

This issue is about two days old, thought I may post it since I can't find threads on it. Yep, Alaskan Republican candidate Joe Miller is making a Federal complaint over allowing certain "write in" votes for Murkowski go through due to their spelling:

Miller argues that election officials' announcement Monday of their standards for write-in ballots--indicating they would interpret voter intent in some cases of misspellings--violated state law. Officials point to past procedures for tabulating write-in ballots as a precedent for assessing voter intent in the Murkowski case.

news.yahoo.com...

Here's the complaint:
joemiller.us...

This is something we should all be concerned about. While both Murkowski and Joe Miller in my eyes are the same political hacks, the nature of the complaint made by Joe Miller has really got to me. Who is he to dictate and block voters due to minor spelling errors? I would understand that in some cases there would be a need to clarify with the voter over the spelling but really, blocking votes right away over minor spelling errors? Whether it's Murkowski or Mirkowski or what have you, I think the vote is clear enough. How can anybody, especially an opposing candidate, be allowed to have some of these votes blocked? Next time you want to write in a candidate outside the Republicans and Democrats, actions like these that you have to worry about.

For some reason it doesn't strike me as outrageous that you should have to know how to spell someone's name if you're going to be involved in the process of electing them to an office of importance. But, I also think you should have to pay taxes and demonstrate a minimal understanding of the issues in order to vote, so maybe my standards are too high in general. I find it somewhat disappointing that this is a real issue.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
For some reason it doesn't strike me as outrageous that you should have to know how to spell someone's name if you're going to be involved in the process of electing them to an office of importance. But, I also think you should have to pay taxes and demonstrate a minimal understanding of the issues in order to vote, so maybe my standards are too high in general. I find it somewhat disappointing that this is a real issue.

So in otherwords you believe that intelligence should be the basis to vote? Sounds fimiliar.

Who knows how many voters tick off the candidates names and who are not too bright themselves? But somehow we want to punish people who write in their candidates? There are plenty of ignorant voters to go around and point to for all candidates, but at the same time it's their right as to who they wish to vote for.

According to the Alaska statute the name on the ballot must match the candidate list and these rules are mandatory. No misspellings allowed.

(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate's name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.

(11) 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....

(b) 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.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I suppose that's true. I do agree that it's a disgusting tactic on the part of Miller to appeal to something so trivial in order to gain an edge.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I suppose that's true. I do agree that it's a disgusting tactic on the part of Miller to appeal to something so trivial in order to gain an edge.

Compliance with the law is "trival" to you?

2nd

Originally posted by centurion1211

Compliance with the law is "trival" to you?

Implying all legislation is good legislation and benefits people.

It's not like this was some big surprise or something, the needing to spell the candidate's name correctly. Heck, for that matter, it was a big chunk of Lisa Murkowski's campaigning. There was a big push about "fill it in, write it in" and spelling her name correctly. She commented on that part of her campaign in an interview while I was watching election night coverage. Made a joke about it and everything. Something about the need for the spelling to be right and her husband giggling and asking her "how do you spell your name again?" That you needed to spell the candidate's name correctly for the vote to count was common knowledge and not a big hidden secret.

That her rival now expects the law to be upheld as it is written doesn't seem to be too unreasonable.

Take care,
Cindi

reply to post by centurion1211


I think the spelling of the last name when intent is clear is trivial in the scheme of things, and making a fuss about it is reflects negatively in a big way on his character and priorities.

Do you suppose that the rule about spelling should take a higher priority than who people actually want their votes to count for? The election is not a spelling contest. It's about voter intent more than anything else. If a candidate is not going to win based on voter intent but might win based on a secondary technicality like spelling, that candidate shouldn't win. It should be immediately clear that voter intent should be the deciding factor and the technicality be recognized as a hinderance to the process.

If I had the time, I could find at least 1,000 useless laws that have been around for one hundred years that are not enforced, or at least enforced with discretion. Off the top of my head, here in Texas oral sex is Illegal. So around 1/3 of the people of Texas should be thrown in jail right? The Law is the Law right? Somebody HAS to uphold it eh?

...point is, laws can be open to interpretation no matter if it says "mandatory" or not. laws can be changed. After all, laws are just words written on paper enforced by the crooks who wrote them.

what if somebody is Dyslexic and spells the name correctly, but backwards?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Wait so your upset about a candidate asking that state law be enforced when counting votes?

Or is it that its just because its a tea party endorsed candidate thats asking for the law to be enforced?

Either way Alaska law says they have to spell the persons name correctly not get it close for the write in vote to count.

And the directions to write in a candidate was ALL OVER THE NEWS in the days leading up to the election. so If people are smart enough to listen to simple directions and follow them it is their problem that their votes will not count. not any candidates problem!

And its not like they couldn't have looked to see how to spell her name wrote it down on a piece of paper and took it with them to the polling place and just copied her name onto the ballot.

Or even Better were they not smart enough to ask an ELECTION judge to help them. I mean after all thats what Election Judges are in the polling places for!

Oh i Know Southern you wouldn't say a word about this "ISSUE" if it was a Democrat asking for the law to be enforced if the write in candidate was a Republican trying to get the Democrats seat!

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
...snipped...
...point is, laws can be open to interpretation no matter if it says "mandatory" or not. laws can be changed. After all, laws are just words written on paper enforced by the crooks who wrote them.

Yes, laws can be changed, and people who feel that laws need to be changed should work to get them changed. That doesn't mean that the law, as it currently stands, doesn't need to be followed in the interim.

It was well known, long before election day, that the write-in candidate's name must be spelled correctly in order for the vote to count. If the voters didn't care about their vote enough to ensure that they knew the correct spelling of their candidate's name, then that is on those voters. The law shouldn't just be abandoned because some voters were too lazy/stupid/whatever to take the time necessary to be sure that their vote would be counted.

Take care,
Cindi

What is the big deal about a court writing laws. They already did it once with the lists they were handing out at the polls.

Now they are going to attempt to legislate again from the bench.

Oh well, when we become a nation of men instead of laws, what do you get?

Oh, that would be a feudal system again.

Par for the course.

Great idea...if you can't spell the name look it up...who hard is that? Heaven forbid we ask people to spell something correctly..that's shocking..

I didn't realize that they were reinstating a form of literacy testing in order to have your vote count...

en.wikipedia.org...

mer-cow-ski knew what she was up against because she spent millions in ads teaching people to spelI her name. I would posit that ANY use of law or legislation for a political edge is used by all parties. Anyone remember the phrase "deemed to be passed" or how about "hanging chad"? Some are outraged at Miller stressing the law being followed and I wonder if the same crowd was outraged when our military voters overseas were disenfranchised by some states not following the law?

It is pathetic that Miller would go so low as to attempt to stop votes based on their spelling (however obvious they may be) because they do not fit his agenda. Imagine if it was the otherway around, I'd bet my bottom dollar he'd be running around screaming out voter fraud to the top of his lungs with tea partiers behind him. Evidently the tea partiers and co. here are willing to make an exception in this case, as with everything else so long as it's for the tea party. It'll be interesting given the attitude of members here as to what excuses lie for us over the actions of tea party candidates over the next year.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
It is pathetic that Miller would go so low as to attempt to stop votes based on their spelling (however obvious they may be) because they do not fit his agenda.

Miller isn't "go"ing anywhere. The law is being enforced and he is making sure of it.

Imagine if it was the otherway around, I'd bet my bottom dollar he'd be running around screaming out voter fraud to the top of his lungs with tea partiers behind him.

Probably not as it is the law. Fruad would be an ignorant thing to claim.

Evidently the tea partiers and co. here are willing to make an exception in this case, as with everything else so long as it's for the tea party. It'll be interesting given the attitude of members here as to what excuses lie for us over the actions of tea party candidates over the next year.

huh? exception to what? that makes no sense.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


This is the same thing that Obama did, though. CNN and MediaMatters discuss how Obama got his challengers removed from the ballot. In some instances it was due to names being forged or people signing who didn't live in the candidate's district. In some cases it was due to voters having gotten married and signing their married names when their voter registrations still listed their maiden names. In some cases it appeared much more frivolous:

If names were printed instead of signed in cursive writing, they were declared invalid. If signatures were good but the person gathering the signatures wasn't properly registered, those petitions also were thrown out.

This, per CNN, on page 3 of their article.

CNN, on page 2, quoted Obama from 2007 saying:

"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," the senator is quoted as saying in the Tribune. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

So, for Obama, it was that "Rules is rules" but for Miller it is because he is a petty "political hack" (in your own words), is that about right?

Obama made these challenges, and rightfully so, based on the law as it stands in Chicago. The same as Miller is doing based on the law, as it stands, in Alaska. Is Joe Miller not entitled to the same protection of the law that Obama was covered by?

Take care,
Cindi