Miller Cites ‘Bush v. Gore’ in Arguments

November 10th, 2010 at 2:54 pm | 9 Comments |

| Print

Salon reports:

It’s not an American election without a lawsuit to challenge a recount. Joe Miller is now exercising his right as a losing American candidate to get as many legitimate votes as possible thrown out. The Miller campaign says that write-in votes for Lisa Murkowski that misspell “Murkowski” should be called “protest votes” and hence disregarded.


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.”

This, uh, will probably not lead to a Miller victory. But as Adam Serwer notes, Miller’s lawyers cited Bush v. Gore.

Now, among many other weird claims made in that decision was the assertion that it should never be cited, because it was a one-time deal that was too specific to those circumstances to become precedent. But Miller’s lawyers are using it as part of a slightly better legal argument against counting misspelled votes: “The Supreme Court has held, however, that a policy directing election officials simply to ascertain the “intent of the voter” in deciding whether, or how to count ballots is “unobjectionable…as a starting principle, but is not constitutionally sufficient.”

Recent Posts by FrumForum News



9 Comments so far ↓

  • Gramps

    “…A large percentage of write-ins have been perfectly cast for Murkowski, with the oval filled in and her first and last names spelled correctly.”

    Man that should, surly, give “Joe boye” the “red arse”…
    For a West Point graduate… and a licensed barrister…I say:

    Hey “Joe boye”, man-up and stop effin’ with the Constitutional intent of the good, citizens… in the great State of Alaska…!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/10/report-98-of-write-in-ballots-counted-thus-far-are-for-murkowski/

    “Slowly I turned and step by step…Hehehe…!

  • Gramps

    “…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.

    Stationary as “boxes of rocks and “dumber than stumps”…

    My only, completely insipid, ridiculous and stupid, question is…
    Why didn’t those geniuses vote for Joe Miller in the first place…
    Musta thought their “Joe boye” was a shoo-in…?

    Beejeebus…their foolish, protest vote[s] just might have cost “Joe boye”, the whole enchilada…err, election…!
    Did Miller, encourage that approach…?

  • JeninCT

    He should pursue every single, legal challenge he can.

  • Gramps

    JeninCT // Nov 10, 2010 at 8:14 pm wrote:

    Hey Jeni…I’m with yah hon…!

    My only question was…did Miller’s campaign encourage; voters, to supposededly write in erroneous names for Murkowski or other ridiculous, fictitious characters or even their own names, in an effort to confuse… the honest intent of all the good, citizens of the great State of Alaska…

    West Point graduate and “legal beagle”…makes yah kinda wonder…
    All’s fair in love and politics…fer you, Jen…and Joe boye Miller?

  • easton

    JeninCT, but why should he if the odds are overwhelmingly against him? Doesn’t respecting the will of the voters count for anything? (and no, primary voters don’t count for either party, the only true vote that counts is election day) Are you in favor of him spending millions of taxpayer dollars in his lust for power (it won’t even lead to a single changed vote in the Senate as Murkowski will caucus with the Republicans)

    For him to state that people misspelling Murkowski is a protest vote for him is obnoxious. Everyone knew that Murkowski had the lead in the polls. Who throws away a vote in some loopy protest when you can vote directly for the candidate?

  • JeninCT

    easton wrote: ‘JeninCT, but why should he if the odds are overwhelmingly against him?”

    Because it will show that party without the backing of the GOP establishment can and will fight for every vote and not just roll over. I know, it may seem senseless and I am usually a pragmatist but it just irks me that the GOP gave up on certain candidates in favor of others, especially in this case.

  • jakester

    So if he goes down, then Palin’s magic is indeed quite weak.

  • Gramps

    What bother’s me most, as an olde soldier, is…
    Joe Miller is/was, supposed to be “an officer and a gentleman”…

    His whole life was based on, truth an honesty as a graduate of, West Point…

    Really gits my grits…!
    I wouldn’t follow you to a “slit trench” latrine, JOE MILLER…!

  • easton

    but it just irks me that the GOP gave up on certain candidates in favor of others, especially in this case.

    That is fair enough, but your beef was before the election, not after. It is clear that the people of Alaska have spoken and they have chosen Murkowski (she won as a write in Candidate against formidable odds). I respect their will and would hate for voters to be disenfranchised because some losers are not happy with the result.