JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by Republican Joe Miller and lifted a stay on certification of Alaska’s U.S. Senate election, clearing the way for Sen. Lisa Murkowski to officially be declared the winner later this week.
The rulings by U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline mean Alaska state officials will likely certify the November election results either Wednesday or Thursday. That would allow Murkowski to be sworn in when the new term of Congress convenes next week, and make her the first U.S. Senate candidate since 1954 to win with a write-in campaign.
“This is the best possible outcome for us,” her campaign manager, Kevin Sweeney, said Tuesday.
Miller, a tea party favorite who defeated Murkowski in Alaska’s GOP primary only to be confronted with her more-energetic November write-in campaign, could still appeal. He has said he’s willing to go to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary — with one of his main goals being ensuring there’s an accurate, fair vote tally. But he also has said he is taking his legal steps one at a time.
His spokesman, Randy DeSoto, said Beistline’s decision was being reviewed.
Beistline had been expected to lift his stay on certifying the election this week, but his decision to toss out Miller’s claims — a day after Miller filed them — was more surprising.
Miller initially sued in federal court but Beistline determined the state courts were in a better position, at least initially, to decide who had won. Beistline barred the state from certifying results until Miller’s claims had been addressed, and he allowed Miller to argue any outstanding federal issues before him after the state Supreme Court ruling.
Last week, the high court refused to overturn results favoring Murkowski and said it found no remaining issues raised by Miller that should prevent the race from being certified.
In federal court filings Monday, Miller argued that state officials had violated provisions of the U.S. Constitution in their handling of the election and write-in ballots for Murkowski.
But Beistline said Tuesday that claims made by Miller either didn‘t rise to constitutional violations or didn’t merit him second-guessing the high court’s determinations.
He said that generally speaking, the state Supreme Court “is the final expositor of Alaska law. That must be the case here.”
Unofficial results showed Murkowski ahead by 10,328 votes, or 2,169 when ballots challenged by Miller’s camp were excluded.
Miller wanted the state held to a strict reading of the law, which calls for write-in ballots to have the ovals filled and either the candidate’s last name or name as it appears on the declaration of candidacy written. Ballots with misspellings, extra words or letters, even stray marks, his team argued, should not count.
Miller sought to have the results of the election invalidated and to get a recount.
The state, pointing to case law, used discretion in determining voter intent and allowed for ballots with misspellings to be counted toward Murkowski’s tally. The high court determined voter intent is “paramount.”
Beistline said Miller‘s technical arguments shouldn’t be read as “frivolous, for it’s easy to understand his view” on the reading of the law. But he said it‘s just as easy to accept the state Supreme Court’s reading.
“What we have before us is a poorly drafted state statute,” he wrote.
Beistline also said he could not find the methods used by the state in counting write-in ballots to be “unreasonable.”
“The very nature of a ‘write-in’ vote pre-supposes a requirement that someone will have to read the handwriting and determine for whom the vote was cast,” he wrote.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Headhunter5150
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 9:38pmI realize I’m outnumbered here, but I’m a moderate. I always try to look at all sides of an issue. To me the most important issue is that the people of the state of Alaska have spoken, and they have chose Murkowski. While I personally don’t agree with all her stands, I can’t say I agree with Mr. Miller completly either. While the Tea Party has had a powerful influence in the Republician Party (I am a registered Republician), I honestly believe that most Americans don’t lean as far to the right as they tend to. I think the results in Alaska show this.
Report Post »janlysak
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 4:47pmThese results are because some in Alaska want the government to take care of them, the Native Corps, unions etc. If our native population didn’t get so many handouts maybe the crime, suicide and alcohol abuse would drop, it is just sad, they have no incentive to become contributing members of our great state. I don’t want to lump all natives in this catagory but some just blindly follow what there “leaders” instruct them to do.
Report Post »chazman
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 12:47pmCorruption, pure and simple …
Report Post »dontbotherme
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 11:58amThe judges opted to ignore the law & negate the people’s true choice. This smells like a Chicago election. The arrogant witch won.
Report Post »NancyBee
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 11:48amShe was voted in by the unions…end of story.
Report Post »amberglows
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 10:24amW H A T E V E R She will turn into a lukewarm, pansy Repub…..another Rhino…..sleeping with the enemy……she is a sore loser……..Alaska, wake up….do you really hate Palin that much that you would put this weenie in office???
Report Post »benrush
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 8:49amI think there may be more shenanigans going on here than meets the eye.
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 9:55amThat is exactly what he was trying to prove, but the judges went to the “liberal” interpretations.
Report Post »justice
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 5:09amAlaska you are nuts, just like Califronia, You wanted her , you got her. Good Luck!
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 12:23pmJustice, I’d like to modify that statement a little. Alaska wanted her now WE have her. Her victory is OUR problem :(
I am so very disappointed. But I have long term goals for the political/economic/moral course of this country and this serves only as a speedbump. I look forward tot he candidates we will have in 2012. It is my hope even more _TRUE_ conservatives run and make gains.
I do not agree with the judge. How can one determine voter intent without the involvement of the individual voters? You take the chance as a voter, knowing the law, voting for a write-in candidate. You have a responsibility to understand the guidelines of the law and have to understand the importance of writing clearly/spelling correctly (it was at the heart of Murkowski’s campaign). You cannot reasonably expect your vote to count, if your handwiritng looks like you wrote the name in while having a seizure during an earthquake or if you spelled the name fo the candidate incorrectly.
Folly of determining voter intent:
Let’s say for example that my intent was to teach Murkowski a lesson to listen to the will of the people and show her the downside of running a campaign as a write-in ballot. I decide I will vote write-in and spell her name wrong (or illegibly) intentionally (maybe Merkowsky or M??k???ki). Because I know the law stipulates the spelling has to be exact and the writing legible, my expectation would have been that my vote would be disregarded. It was my intent to have Murkowski to feel like my vote was a missed opportunity and that the write-in campaign was a waste of time and resources. Because they feel they know what I was trying to do, they tally my write-in protest vote as a vote for Murkowski.
One might say that’s a stretch but there were initiatives in AK to have people with similar names like to run as a write-in candidates.
I think there is no other way to handle write-in balltos except for an exact interpretation of what was written. Otherwise, there we begin to give latitude to manipulate vote tallies.
Do I make sense?
Though, I do believe Mr. Miller truly lost. I think it is important for him to pursue this for the sake of making sure voter intent does not become the precedent for counting write-ins.
Report Post »janlysak
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 4:41pmWe are not all nuts this whole thing is corrupt. Alaska is now officially bought and paid for by the Native Corps, Unions and Washington DC elite. It just makes me sick, she is not my Senator nor will she ever be.
Report Post »calijohn
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 3:02amfinally it’s over
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 8:22amThe sorry thing about this is it has just empowered her making her think she really has some type of crazy mandate from the fine people of Alaska. Wait and see what clownish laws and entitlements she will vote for or pursue. Alaska, you did yourself wrong on this one, but that is just one mans opinion.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 8:27amAnother Soros-bought judge? Would never raise that question albeit who is in the WH.
Report Post »