Fairbanks, Alaska. December 28, 2010 — In response to today’s ruling by Alaska’s Federal District Court, Joe Miller issued the following statement:

“I am disappointed with the federal court’s ruling today. The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause presented the most significant constitutional issue. Specifically, should the courts be required to follow the legislature’s standard for the selection of U.S. Senators or create their own? My legal team believes that the clear language of the Election Clause as well as precedent support our claims. Thus, we are evaluating the ruling and determining what our next step should be.”

###

Miller reviewing what impact the state supreme court’s decision may have on his federal suit.

Fairbanks, Alaska. December 22, 2010 — The Alaska Supreme Court issued a ruling earlier today denying both Joe Miller’s appeal and Lisa Murkowski’s cross-appeal, affirming various decisions of the Division of Elections that the candidates had challenged.

“We disagree with the court’s intrepretation of the election code, but respect both the rule of law and the court’s place in the judicial system,” Miller said. “We are studying the opinion and carefully considering our options.”

He added, “I am deeply gratified by the unwavering support that so many people throughout the State have offered throughout this entire process.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska also issued an order, inviting Miller to submit a brief regarding his federal claims by this Monday, December 27, and directed the State to file a response by the following Wednesday.

“We are reviewing the state supreme court’s ruling to determine the impact it will have on our federal claims–which the federal court already noted were ‘substantial’–and identify the best way to proceed,” noted Michael T. Morley, one of Miller’s attorneys.

Miller noted, “This litigation always has been about preventing the Division of Elections from being able to re-write the law as it chooses, and seizing for itself the power to be able to affect the outcome of elections based on what write-in votes it chooses to count.”

###

Anchorage, Alaska. December 17, 2010 — The Supreme Court of Alaska heard oral arguments today in Miller v. Treadwell. Appellate and election-law attorney Michael T. Morley argued for Joe Miller, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate. Morley explained that the Alaska legislature established a clear, bright-line test for determining the validity of write-in ballots, to prevent bureaucrats and state officials from being able to affect the outcome of elections by deciding for themselves which ballots to count. He further argued that state law does not permit the Division of Elections to discriminate in favor of write-in ballots by allowing Division personnel to review thousands of write-in ballots that automated tally machines had rejected as invalid, while not doing the same for ballots cast for candidates who appeared on the ballot, such as Miller.

“The tenor of the Court’s questions shows that it believes we have raised substantial legal questions.” Miller commented. “All we are asking the Court is to apply the plain text of Alaska law as written.”

During the argument, Morley pointed out that the whole point of requiring write-in ballots to be spelled correctly is to prevent election officials from being able to decide for themselves which ones should be counted. “The legislature’s ‘correct spelling’ standard prevents thousands of ballot-by-ballot skirmishes over whether particular spellings are ‘close enough’ to be counted.”

The Court appeared particularly concerned about the fact that the trial court granted the State summary judgment on Miller’s claims, without even giving him a chance to seek discovery or gather evidence in support of them. “We presented numerous questions of fact to the trial court. According to official state records, thousands of people were permitted to vote without showing identification. Further, the handwriting on all the write-in ballots from several precincts was the same, or appeared to be written by only a few people.” Campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto added, “An initial review by our campaign revealed that several hundred convicted sex offenders voted, and we are concerned that this may indicate a wider problem with many hundreds or even thousands who voted who were ineligible to do so. The State wants the Court to allow it to ignore this troubling evidence, turn a blind eye, and simply hope everything was fine with the election, instead of allowing us to investigate these problems and give the public some degree of assurance that the election was conducted legally and fairly.”

###

Anchorage, Alaska. December 13, 2010 — Today, the Joe Miller for U.S. Senate Campaign filed its Notice of Appeal with the Alaska Supreme Court. The Court has issued an expedited briefing schedule, whereby Mr. Miller’s opening brief is due tomorrow, and the State’s opposition brief will be due on Wednesday. Oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for Friday December 17, 2010. Mr. Miller is appealing portions of Judge Carey’s ruling, including the ruling that essentially modifies state law that previously required write-in ballots to match the candidate’s declaration form, but now, after Judge Carey’s ruling, such ballots will be counted as long as an unelected bureaucrat believes he or she can determine or guess what a voter intended.

Said Mr. Miller, “We have consistently asserted that the law should be followed strictly. The fact that the legislature stated that there should be “no exceptions” to the ballot counting method is what, in our view, should govern this matter. Under the current ruling, there are now over 8,000 exceptions, a result everyone who favors the rule of law should question.”

Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto added, “In order to get a fair and accurate count we need a hand review and count of Joe’s ballots. Lisa Murkowski’s were reviewed and counted in this fashion, but Miller ballots not tallied by the voting machines–due to the ballot not being filled out properly–are not included in his count. With over 255,000 ballots cast (and a less than 1% difference separating Miller and Murkowski in the unchallenged count), this number could be significant. Additionally, we have sworn statements of machines in various precincts not functioning properly. Equal protection under the law requires that Miller’s ballots be counted in the same fashion as Murkowski’s, by hand.”

###