Judge halts Alaska Senate Certification

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Al...er+Senate+election+results/3868930/story.html

"Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller filed suit in Alaska state court Monday challenging the election victory of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski and effectively halting certification of results.
Miller’s 21-page lawsuit closely tracks an earlier complaint filed in federal court challenging write-in votes for Murkowski in the Nov. 2 election.
A member of one of the state’s most powerful political families and a senator since 2002, Republican Murkowski had to campaign to get voters to write her name on the ballot after Miller, backed by the Tea Party movement and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, defeated her in Alaska’s Republican primary in August.
Miller, who stunned experts by beating Murkowski, claims that elections officials violated state law by interpreting write-in ballots as votes for Murkowski despite spelling and handwriting mistakes.
Murkowski’s camp swiftly issued a written statement saying she would file a challenge of her own."


​
 
The Painter said:
Do you need to go back to 2000 when the Democrats sued over election results? I don't know how old you are, maybe you don't remember that.
Click to expand...

Actually it was Bush who went to the courts first. He went to the federal courts to stop the counties from performing Gore's requested manual recount. Bush lost and the manual recounts continued.
 
applecorped said:
To be fair he did say, “This isn't even about winning or losing the election -- it’s about making sure the process is fair and according to law in the future,” Miller said. Whether you think he was being sincere is another matter.
Click to expand...

This statement reminds me of those who say that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery but over States' Rights.

If he's got any concern that the process was unfair, he's talking about the outcome of the election.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
This statement reminds me of those who say that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery but over States' Rights.

If he's got any concern that the process was unfair, he's talking about the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...

So, how would any opposing candidate, who had lost, question the validity of the write in process without being accused of sour grapes? Would you have had the exact same opinion had the roles been reversed?
 
applecorped said:
So, how would any opposing candidate, who had lost, question the validity of the write in process without being accused of sour grapes? Would you have had the exact same opinion had the roles been reversed?
Click to expand...
As for me, although I don't see either candate as very good, the kicker is the margin of victory. If it had been very close, it might be justified, but with a margin like this, it is a complete waste of taxpayers' money that will do nothing. I would have said that regardless of who lost, even if it had been the Democrat in second place.
 
I dunno, the whole thing rubs me the wrong way. Following the "Letter of the law" down to the exact spelling of the write in candidates name - where "a" is not the same as a.
Why would anyone want such a person in a position of power? If being human is not allowed, we might as well replace the politicians with machines.

The idea of the Tea Party was to not just win, but win big. This is kind of like 'contempt of voter'.
 
I'm waiting for Bristol Palin to demand a recount.

She and Miller are both second rate candidates who made it close to the grand prize with the backing of rabid supporters. However, when it became clear that either of them might win, the majority stood up and said, "Enough is enough." and pushed aside the wannabees in favor of someone more appropriate.

(And, for the record, I do not watch DWTS, but commentators have convinced me I might have been missing something. Apparently, someone named Jennifer Grey is quite talented and worth watching.)
 
Lurker said:
Is it possible that some Democrats voted for Miller or Murkowski? This is the general election, not the primary.
Click to expand...

A number of Alaska Dems voted for Murkowski, out of fear that enough of our wingnuts might show up and put Miller in the lead of the 3-way race. I am truly surprised that he got more votes than McAdams.
Oh well - you can never lose money underestimating the intelligence of the American public and Alaska is everything American magnified.
 
fishbob said:
A number of Alaska Dems voted for Murkowski, out of fear that enough of our wingnuts might show up and put Miller in the lead of the 3-way race. I am truly surprised that he got more votes than McAdams.
Oh well - you can never lose money underestimating the intelligence of the American public and Alaska is everything American magnified.
Click to expand...
Tell me FB, were Alaskans less extreme once upon a time? Is my buddy right when he says that oil brought an influx of transplants from TX and OK which brought about the rise of fundamentalism?
 
varwoche said:
Tell me FB, were Alaskans less extreme once upon a time? Is my buddy right when he says that oil brought an influx of transplants from TX and OK which brought about the rise of fundamentalism?
Click to expand...


I understand that when people are told they're being sent to Alaska it isn't uncommon to hear "Oh, God!", or "Jesus Christ!", but I always thought that meant something other than an expression of devout gratitude.
 
Tricky said:
As for me, although I don't see either candate as very good, the kicker is the margin of victory. If it had been very close, it might be justified, but with a margin like this, it is a complete waste of taxpayers' money that will do nothing. I would have said that regardless of who lost, even if it had been the Democrat in second place.
Click to expand...

^This. Recount of write-ins would make no difference. No point in doing so whatsoever.
 
Region Rat said:
^This. Recount of write-ins would make no difference. No point in doing so whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Yes, recounts are meaningless now.

That's what the SCOTUS said back in 2000 after every recount showed Bush still in the lead.

And yet, to this day, Liberals still claim he "stole" the election.
 
deepatrax said:
Yes, recounts are meaningless now.

That's what the SCOTUS said back in 2000 after every recount showed Bush still in the lead.

And yet, to this day, Liberals still claim he "stole" the election.
Click to expand...

You are aware that that was a much much closer election right?
 
This is going to end in such a wonderful humiliation for Miller, Quitter Palin, and the Tea Party...

:popcorn6
 
MattusMaximus said:
This is going to end in such a wonderful humiliation for Miller, Quitter Palin, and the Tea Party...

:popcorn6
Click to expand...

it's quite amusing what the Left tries to pass off as Victory in the last midterms...lol.

- Republicans win the House
- Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, wins in Alaska
- of the 37 out of 100 available Senate seats up for election, 19 were held by Democrats, and they LOST 6, 18 were held by Republicans and they lost NONE. Republicans won 65% of the available Senate seats

and from all of this, Democrats are still grasping to claim some sort of victory!?

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom