Alaska's Supreme Court has virtually guaranteed a court battle over Alaska's election results

[Blue_In_AK]

unless Scott McAdams wins this thing outright. I usually have a lot of respect for our court, but I think this decision is just plain wrong, especially allowing poll workers to assist with spelling write-in Lisa Murkowski's name. What's going to happen when a voter hops out from behind a curtain and shouts, "How do I spell Murkowski?" when the rest of us can't even wear a campaign button into the polling station? Why even have a primary election if the write-in candidate gets this kind of assistance?

Never in the history of Alaska has a write-in candidate list been available within the polling stations. Rules and statutes are being "bent" to favor Lisa Murkowski.

http://www.adn.com/2010/10/29/1525676/alaska-supreme-court-weighing.html

Voters who need help spelling the name of a write-in candidate and who want to see a list of those certified candidates can look at the list under limited circumstances, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday afternoon.

The list, though, won't include the party affiliation of the candidates on it, and it can only be handed out to those voters who specifically ask for help in voting for a write-in candidate, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision issued late Friday afternoon.

"There will be some circumstances where providing the list will not be necessary to address a voter's request for assistance and other circumstances where providing the list will be necessary to address a voter's request for assistance," the court said in its ruling.

"For example, if a voter requested the correct spelling of a specified registered write-in candidate's name, it would be unnecessary to provide the entire list to that voter in order to provide the requested spelling assistance."The court also said the Division of Election won't have to segregate the ballots of those voters who reference the list, a change from its previous order.

<snip>

Princess Lisa living up to her name.

[treestar]

1. If I were going to write in a candidate, I'd take the time to learn to

spell their name. I mean if you think enough of someone to write them in when they weren't nominated by a party, you'd think learning to spell their name would be not too much to ask.

Also it could be challenge on counting the votes. Or don't they count if not spelled correctly? Interestingly, suppose someone wrote in "Lissa Merkowski?" Will they interpret that as the voter obviously intended? Or say that isn't the right person?

[emulatorloo]

3. Self-Delete. Misunderstood OP, (blush) n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. Does misspelling a write-in's name disqualify the ballot?

That seems to fly in the face of voter intent anyway. No?

I don't agree with providing a list of write-ins. Kinda defeats the whole idea of a write-in.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. No, the Division of Elections had already stated that "voter intent"

would be the defining criterion, and, of course, that is subject to wide interpretation, as well. It's become blatantly obvious that the DOE is in Lisa Murkowski's pocket. A guy called in to Shannyn Moore's show yesterday stating that he was a registered write-in in 2008, and when he inquired whether a list of write-ins could be provided in the polling stations, he was told "no" unequivocally.

This is last-minute electioneering by state officials, and it's pretty obvious. I realize that the Supreme Court is attempting to ensure that everyone's intended vote counts, but making this decision at the last minute in such a high-profile election is just wrong, in my opinion.

[bluedeminredstate]

6. Hi there

I always enjoy reading your posts since I find Alaska politics so fascinating. I have a question for you: what's the general feeling up there in the local media and on the street about the chances of a McAdams' win? Is it really possible that Murkowski could walk away with this as a write-in? Last one: Is there any chance Joe Miller could pull out a win after his implosion this past week?
I'd love to hear any insight you have as a local!

:hi:

[Blue_In_AK]

7. All of my friends are Democrats and left-leaning independents

so I KNOW how they're voting. The only thing I can base any kind of unbiased projection on is comments at the Anchorage Daily News. There is a ton of infighting between the Miller and Murkowski supporters. Very little negative has been said about Scott, other than that he's fat (I prefer to think of him as the name a Tlingit clan gave him when they adopted him into their family -- Keét Yiyaágu, which means "Boat Size Killer Whale"), he lacks experience and he'll vote with Obama. Ooo, scary.

Everyone agrees (including Joe Miller) that Scott is personable and a most likeable guy.

I'm just not sure how the Republican votes are going to go. Miller has been disgraced, but his people are FURIOUS about the Supreme Court ruling. Lisa's people keep saying that a vote for Scott is a vote for Joe Miller, and we keep saying there's really no difference (other than sanity) between Lisa and Joe because they're going to vote the same way, regardless.

I do think Scott has a chance. I've seen comments even from Miller supporters who have said that even though they don't agree with his politics, they're going to vote for Scott because he's honest, ethical and above the fray.

Really, I think this election is anybody's guess. McAdams has run by far the best campaign, and everybody knows it.



Please read this Mudflats post from Linda Kellen-Biegel about Scott's new ad, which addresses the "size" issue -- as if that should really be an issue at all. http://www.themudflats.net/2010/10/30/mcadams-full-page-ad-im-twice-the-man-joe-miller-is/

[Aramchek]

4. Lisa knows that write-ins just do not win.