Miller Asks Court to Invalidate the State’s Illegal Ballot Counting Rules

/in /by

The Senate candidate also uncovers evidence of other apparent statutory violations

Juneau, Alaska. December 8, 2010 — Earlier today, Judge William Carey held a nearly two-hour hearing on challenges brought by Joe Miller, Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, to the State’s handling of the 2010 general election. Miller asked the Court to rule in his favor on his claims that state law prohibits misspelled write-in ballots from being counted, and bars the State from discriminating against certain voters by applying much more lenient and favorable standards and procedures for determining the validity of write-in ballots than for other ballots.

Miller also maintains that the Alaska’s Administrative Procedures Act barred Lieutenant Governor Craig Campbell and Director of Elections Gail Fenumiai from simply imposing these decisions by fiat, rather than giving the public advance notice and allowing them an opportunity to comment on the newly created write-in ballot review guidelines.

Additionally, he submitted numerous affidavits establishing that several thousand people were permitted to vote, with no record that they showed proper identification, and that most or all of the write-in ballots from several precincts appear to have been filled out by the same person or a small group of people. He also submitted newly discovered evidence showing that at least several hundred convicted felons from the Alaska sex offender database were permitted to cast ballots, in apparent violation of the state’s voter disenfranchisement laws.

Miller explained, “This is not about my winning or losing. This is about upholding the integrity of the electoral process, and ensuring that the public can be confident in the results. The State cannot be permitted to flagrantly disregard nearly a half-dozen different statutes and make up new rules on the fly.”

Michael T. Morley, the Washington-D.C. based appellate and election law attorney who argued the case on Miller’s behalf, emphasized, “There is certain language used in federal law, in the law of our sister states, in the Alaska Administrative Code, and even in other portions of the very statute at issue that lawmakers use when they wish to allow misspelled ballots to be counted. The legislature specifically chose to omit such language from the provision regarding write-in ballots.”

Morley explained, “The legislature clearly did not intend to allow executive branch officials to decide for themselves which write-in ballots are ‘close enough’ to be counted. The statute should not be read as granting the Lieutenant Governor or Director of Elections the power to decide elections based on how permissive they choose to be regarding write-in ballots. Allowing such discretion would open those serving in the executive branch to accusations of making rulings that favor one candidate over another. The legislature decided to avoid this potential appearance of bias, by creating a clear, bright line test.”

Miller pointed out that the State is attempting to ignore a wide range of troubling evidence without conducting even a cursory examination. “When all of the write-in ballots from certain precincts appear to be in the same handwriting, most people would regard that as suspicious. When hundreds of people on the sex offender registry are recorded in election registers as having voted, most reasonable people similarly would conclude that someone should take a second look at that.” Pointing out that he already has submitted several affidavits from campaign observers providing evidence of these issues, Miller argued that the circumstances appear troubling enough to warrant further investigation.

“The State cannot turn a blind eye to this troubling evidence, simply assume that nothing improper happened, and certify an election potentially based on thousands, if not more, of illegal ballots,” said Morley.

The Court indicated that it likely would issue a ruling on the parties’ summary judgment motions on Friday, but stay the effect of any order it entered to allow the losing side to appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.

“We are confident the court will enforce Alaska law as written, invalidate the illegal standards and procedures the State applied to write-in ballots, and allow us to obtain further information regarding the other apparent improprieties with the election,” Miller stated.

###

Joe Miller Tells Begich to Get Back to Work

/in /by

Fairbanks, Alaska. December 6, 2010 — Recently, Mark Begich issued a statement asking Joe Miller to drop his legal challenge to the election ballot issues. In response, Joe Miller said Begich should “get back to work and stop wasting time in D.C.” Joe Miller explained that Begich fails to understand either the legal issues or the reasons why the challenge has been made. Miller stated, “What is vital is that the people of Alaska can trust the election process. The Miller campaign has stated repeatedly, all we want is for all the votes to be counted in accordance with Alaska Statutes.” Contrary to Begich’s assertion, personal ambition has nothing to do with the legal issues, and such a statement “reflects a serious misunderstanding if not a complete ignorance about the election process and the issues involved. I think Begich would better serve Alaska by working on a budget that does not bankrupt our country instead of fiddling away while Rome burns,” said Miller.

Campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto added, “It should be of great concern that Mark Begich, who is so aligned with President Obama’s failed Big Government policies, feels so anxious to make sure Lisa Murkowski stands by his side in the Senate.”

###

Court Holds Hearing, Postpones Ruling on Murkowski Intervention in Miller Lawsuit

/in /by

Juneau, Alaska. December 1, 2010 — Alaska Superior Court Judge William Carey held a hearing today on Lisa Murkowski’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit brought by Joe Miller, Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, challenging the legality of the process the Division of Elections used to count write-in ballots, as well as several other discrepancies and improprieties in the 2010 general election for U.S. Senate.

Because of serious questions concerning whether Ms. Murkowski’s legal interests are being adequately protected by the State, the court deferred ruling on the motion until tomorrow, and directed Ms. Murkowski’s attorneys to file a supplemental pleading. Murkowski’s attorneys argued that the State improperly rejected certain ballots—estimates ranged from a few hundred to approximately two thousand—that, they maintained, should have been counted for her.

“Murkowski has called into question even more write-in ballots cast in this election, further undermining the public’s ability to have any confidence in the Division of Election’s initial vote count. Even my opponent contends that the Division has failed to comply with Alaska law.” said Joe Miller.

Michael T. Morley, a Washington D.C. appellate and election law attorney representing Miller, explained, “The fact that the Murkowski campaign is now attempting to argue that a few hundred additional ballots should have been counted for her simply underscores how close this election remains, and how worried her campaign is that the court will invalidate the Division’s improper count.”

Commenting on the court’s postponement of a decision on Murkowski’s intervention motion, Morley commented, “Sen. Murkowski has not met the legal requirements for intervention set forth by the Alaska Supreme Court, particularly in a case such as this where the State is defending the legality of its own sovereign acts.” He pointed out that a potential intervenor must show that the State has colluded with the other side, has a conflict of interest, is refusing to do its job, or is not competent to proceed. No such allegations have even been made in this case.”

Miller emphasized, “Regardless of whether Ms. Murkowski is permitted to intervene, we are confident that the court will enforce Alaska law as written, invalidate the State’s illegal initial count, and require that every ballot be hand-counted in accordance with state law.”

###