Friday, December 31, 2010

Joe Miller Ends Legal Challenges to AK Election

Former US Senate candidate Joe Miller announced today that he has ended his legal challenge to the Alaska US Senate election, the Anchorage Daily News reported. Miller will not be appealing his case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and will not file a state election contest.
Miller thanked his supporters and said the time has come to accept the "practical realities" of court decisions that have been unanimous in ruling against his challenge. He said he would remain a voice for smaller government, less federal spending and other issues favored by the tea party.

Following is the complete transcript of Miller's remarks as this election battle was brought to a close:


As many of you know, I am a father. I have 8 wonderful children and an extraordinary wife. One of the primary reasons I decided to run for the U.S. Senate was because of my sincere belief that the reckless spending by those in office was bankrupting our country. In what can only be described as actions that are selfish, irresponsible and immoral, we continue to pass on trillion dollar deficits to our children. This delusional spending has no regard for the burden placed on them, and no consideration for the difficulties we place on ourselves.

It is said that a politician runs for the next election, but a statesman runs for the next generation. I have always viewed my platform as one that would benefit the next generation more than ourselves. It was a message that over 90,000 Alaskans endorsed and millions across the nation supported.

But we ultimately fell short this time. While it appeared unlikely that the vote margin would be overcome, we wanted to make sure that the vote count was honest and conducted in compliance with the law. Adhering to the rule of law is the bedrock of our democracy. We raised concerns about the election process under a state law that a federal judge recently ruled was “a poorly drafted state statute” and that the court suggested “the Alaska Legislature act to clarify it.” Recent comments and prefiled bills by Alaskan legislators on both sides of the aisle suggest that they too agree on the need to revise state election laws. Even the lieutenant governor has called for an internal review. All Alaskans should demand that this review is transparent and independent.

I have been criticized for seeking to apply the rule of law to this election, and I have paid a price for our approach. I accept that criticism knowing that often doing what is right is not the same thing as doing what is easy—or popular. The easy thing to do would be to ignore the electoral irregularities and move on to other things. While persisting in this fight, I knew my motives, and indeed my judgment, would be called into question. What is true, is that I fought this fight, so that candidates in the future would not have to do so. There can be nothing more serious, and more sacrosanct, than our election process. It’s the tool we use to maintain the will of the people in determining the course of this state and the nation. When the laws governing this sacred process -- laws voted into place by the people and their legislstors -- when these laws are disregarded, for whatever reason, all Alaskans should demand answers. And so, given the facts, and my position at the time, I chose to fight, for this process, and the rule of law. We were not successful in that endeavor, but the fight was a worthy one, and one I will not shy away from, should I be faced with it again.

As a Constitutional conservative, I respect the rule of law as much as I sought to have enforced the rule of law. I say today that the courts have spoken. To my many supporters who continue to urge me to appeal to the Ninth Circuit and the US Supreme Court, I say that I hear you, but the time has come to accept the practical realities of our current legal circumstances. We shall abide by the courts’ decisions even if we do not agree with them.

I stand before you today to explain where we are in the process and what our future plans are. I started my run for Senate out of a sincere love for my country and my state. There is no place more extraordinary than Alaska, with its wide open spaces, rugged extremes and individuals, and unparalleled challenges. And there is no nation more exceptional than the United States of America, founded on the unshakeable principle that God has given us fundamental rights that no one and no government has the right to take away. I voluntarily pledged my life and all my resources to defend this country and those principles. And I would do so again.

Like so many Alaskans, I have grave concerns about the course our country is taking. We are spending money we don't have. I brought a message to this state and I sounded an alarm. The way of the past, with its obsession for growing the federal government, out of control spending, pork barrel politics, corrupting earmarks, and its disregard for individual liberty, is destroying our country. Now is the time for us to engage in a national conversation about the role of the federal government, its relationship with the states and the people, and the need to balance and responsibly manage the federal budget. I also applaud the efforts of the Republican leadership to not only read into the record the Constitution, but to cite the Constitutional authority for each proposed law.

Unlike so many people in D.C. right now, I still believe in American exceptionalism.

I still believe in the American individual.

I still believe in the sovereign State of Alaska and the independent Alaskan.

And always, always, I believe in and maintain an unshakeable faith in God and his providence and grace.

Our campaign was an underdog from the beginning. Going against the establishment, and a political force with so much money and power standing behind it to defend the status quo was a formidable challenge that few thought we were up to. Many knew the risk of standing against such power, and still they stood with us. Our support network, many of whom we see here, and the will, passion and foresight of a great people were up to the task, and through the grace of God, we prevailed in the primary.

However, more than just a testament to the will of our supporters, defeating a sitting Senator in the primary reflected a simple truth--tens of thousands of Alaskans heard my message and knew its truth. And over 90,000 Alaskans said loud and clear on Election Day--enough! And in a state that is dependent on enormous federal funding, the fact that so many Alaskans were able to see beyond today and look to the future was an amazing achievement, and a testament to their character.

My message was honest. The truth cannot be hidden from the people any longer. But blunt honesty has a price. The messenger may not always be appreciated. It’s been said that in war you can only die once, but in politics you can die a thousand deaths. I like to kind of focus on the resurrection part of that message.

But in speaking the truth we saw how quickly those whose economic model depends on government waste reacted. These powerful vested corporate interests, funded in part by U.S. taxpayer dollars with no bid contracts, successfully organized against our messages of reform and fiscal responsibility.

The campaign is over, but the real impact of the outcome is just starting to be felt. We’ve seen in just the past few weeks what direction Senator Murkowski wants to take the country and Alaska, a direction that I campaigned against, and I will continue to oppose.

We need to demand that our elected leaders remember that “Freedom” is not unlimited financial support funded by fellow taxpayers. “Liberty” is not recklessly spending us into bankruptcy. The ability to prosper in this nation and reach our full potential is not based on how much the government can give us, but rather how much it will leave us be, to thrive and determine our own destiny.

People ask me what my plans for the future are. I know for a fact that standing down is not an option, and I will continue to sound the alarm about the state of our nation. But exactly what form that will take, I don't know quite yet.

I do know that I have a loving family and the support of my wonderful wife. We have a great state, and the support of tens of thousands of Alaskans. My supporters were the most loyal, devoted and energetic volunteers any campaign could hope for. I studied American politics, while I was at West Point; I’ve been a student of it since; I taught it when I was at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. I have never seen, of course I am a little bit biased here, I have never seen a campaign so energized, so funded, so supported by the base. Extraordinary. That’s one thing that ought to go down in the history books. We have been blessed beyond words by your contribution and sacrifice. These were people, who gave not just their financial resources, but their time. But beyond these sacrifices, and quite possibly even more significant, they gave us their endorsement. They took the value of their good word, built up with friends and neighbors over a lifetime of honest deeds and actions, and put that behind me and this cause. They placed signs in their yard and said, “This is my candidate. I stand with him.” There can be no greater honor, and no more humbling experience for me personally, than to receive the faith and trust of these good people. I will live my life trying to live up to the magnitude of that trust, so that no one who has ever placed that faith in me will be let down. To all of you, and especially to my incredible wife Kathleen, I say thank you.

People from across the country have reached out to us. Great leaders and minds of conservative thought embraced us and our message also. Again, let me say we are, and were, humbled and honored beyond words by this.

This is not the beginning of the end. This is the end of the beginning. While Alaska may not, at this point, have embraced the sort of reform that this nation and state needs to survive, hope IS apparent, as evidenced by the overwhelming message sent to Washington DC in this last election cycle. The American people are increasingly rejecting socialism, and conservatives are rejecting career politicians who stand for nothing save self preservation. These are great days, in that regard, and all who value liberty should take heart at these recent events. There is much to do, but the light has shone, and I believe, more and more Americans and Alaskans will wake up to this light, and embrace, and not oppress, those values that for so long in our recent times, we have forsaken.

Whatever comes next, I can make only one promise: I will work now, and for the rest of my life, to educate and inspire, and to fight to protect the things that have made this state and this nation great, and will defend with every fiber of my being, the hallowed principles outlined in the divinely inspired document that for over 200 years has not just ensured our freedom, but has been a beacon of hope for the entire world: the Constitution of the United States. Where corruption and complacency threaten to weaken it, I will draw the lines of battle and step into the breach. I would ask those who believe in these principles, and share this love of liberty, to step with me.

Thank you, all of you, for the privilege of being your candidate.

May God continue to bless our state, our country, and guide Senator Murkowski in her future actions.




Joe Miller became one of my two adopted candidates here on Organize4Palin, since It's Miller Time in Alaska was the precursor blog. A member of the Miller campaign asked me set up a Miller-specific blog to allow focus on his message. Gov. Palin's endorsement propelled Miller to win the primary from over 20 points behind the incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski. For that reason, one aspect of the Miller campaign - an apparent desire to distance the campaign from Gov. Palin - troubled me, however, given the outcome, it probably worked out better that way. Gov. Palin was not responsible for his loss in any way, shape or form, regardless of how detractors in both parties wish to spin it. The same endorsement that once carried him to victory when victory was impossible did not precipitate his loss.

But a primary election is only for the voters of a specific party and any Republican who was true to the party's principles knew full well that Sen. Murkowski is no conservative. Unfortunately in the general election, addiction to earmarks overruled Reagan Conservatism and Sen. Murkowski won by over 10,000 votes.

Joe Miller fought the good fight. But, having lost decisively in three court rooms in two different court systems, continuing this case would have been Quixotic at best, delusional at worst. As Kenny Rogers sung in The Gambler, "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run." Folding 'em and walking away tonight was the right thing to do. The time has come to focus on the future and not live in the past.

This is my last post on Organize4Palin in the service of a 2010 election endorsed candidate. It's Miller Time in Alaska has served its purpose and will be left dormant after tonight. With this matter closed out, Organize4Palin can now retool for one of the most important elections of our lifetimes....the time draws near to revive, renew, and restore.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Lisa Murkowski Certified as AK Senate Election Winner

Alaska Governor Sean Parnell and Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell today signed paperwork certifying Sen. Lisa Murkowski as the winner of Alaska's Senatorial election, the Anchorage Daily News reported this evening. Alaska's Division of Elections Director Gail Fenumiai will be hand-delivering the certification paperwork to Washington DC. The official election result places Sen. Murkowski ahead of Joe Miller by 10,252 votes. She is the first Senate candidate in 66 years to win a write-in campaign.

Miller challenged the election in both federal and state courts. His election challenges were dismissed entirely in both court systems. Miller will be holding a press conference tomorrow to announce whether he will appeal the federal case, file a state election contest, or concede and cease all legal action. The state of Alaska is seeking to collect the legal maximum of 20% ($16,000) of the legal fees it incurred in fighting Miller's election suit. One state lawmaker wants to revise the election to specify that voter intent will be the standard used in counting write-in votes.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Miller to Announce Plans Friday; Owes AK $16K; Election Law Might Change

Former US Senate candidate Joe Miller will be holding a press conference this Friday to announce his next legal move, his campaign and the Anchorage Daily News reported tonight. His options are: federal appeal, state election contest, or concession. Further, the State of Alaska is seeking $15,957.55, in legal fees from Miller's team to cover 20% of its legal expenses in fighting the Miller case. The state is permitted to collect 20% of the full $79,722.50 incurred. Finally, Alaska State Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage wants to change the state's election law to specify that voter intent will be the standard used when counting write-in ballots.

Miller's press conference is Friday, December 31, 2010 at 1400 (2 PM) AKST at 607 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503. For media questions email Randy DeSoto at randy@joemiller.us.

Miller Considering Next Legal Steps

Joe Miller said in a press release sent overnight that his legal team believes that the Elections Clause and precedent support their legal claims and they are considering their next legal steps. The next most likely legal step for the Tea Party conservative would be an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the most liberal Appeals Court Circuit in the nation. There, his team would have to argue before three judges that Judge Beistline committed an error of law or made judicial errors in his ruling. Because only .01% of cases brought before the US Supreme Court are granted Certiorari, odds are 99.99% that the ruling from a Circuit Court appeal would be the final one.

"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."

Complete Transcript: US District Court, District of Alaska: Miller v. Lieut. Gov. Mead Treadwell, in his Official Capacity, and State of Alaska, Division of Elections

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Federal Trial Court Dismisses Miller's Election Case

US Senate Candidate Joe Miller's federal court case alleging violations of the Election and Equal Protection clauses of the US Constitution was dismissed today, according to an Anchorage Daily News report. Judge Beistline dismissed Millers' case entirely before the State of Alaska even responded. The state's response was due tomorrow, December 29. In dismissing the case, the judge lifted the injunction he had placed on the state against certifying Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent as the winner.

In the federal court system, a case may only be appealed a Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds of judicial error committed by the trial court (US District Courts) judge. Both sides in a appeal have three minutes to present oral arguments. Appeals are generally heard by a panel of three judges; however, in rare cases they may be heard en banc - that is all active judges for whichever one of the 13 Circuit Courts of Appeals has jurisdiction over a case. The final stop in the appeals process is the US Supreme Court which hears cases only after granting a Writ of Certiorari. The US Supreme Court grants Certiorari only to a fraction of the cases brought before it - roughly 100 out of 10,000 or .01%, making the Circuit Court of Appeals the final arbiter in 99.9% of the cases.

Joe Miller, therefore, must be able to argue an error of law on Judge Beistline's part to have basis for an appeal. Should he be able to argue this, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over Alaska would hear the case. If Miller has no legal basis for an appeal, his entire electoral journey likely has reached its conclusion today.

Complete Transcript: US District Court, District of Alaska: Miller v. Lieut. Gov. Mead Treadwell, in his Official Capacity, and State of Alaska, Division of Elections

Monday, December 27, 2010

Miller to Continue Case in Federal Court

The Anchorage Daily News and the Miller campaign both reported overnight that US Senate Candidate Joe Miller will continue his case in federal court arguing on the US Constitution's Election and Equal Protection clauses. Miller, however, is withdrawing his motion, which led to the federal injunction on the State of Alaska certifying the election. The withdrawal, or the judge's lifting of the injunction irrespective of Miller's actions means that Sen. Murkowski will be seated in the next Congress and retain her seniority on committees.

Judge Beistline will rule from the filing of both Joe Miller and the State of Alaska, so there will not be any oral arguments made by either side. Miller first filed his suit in federal court, but Judge Beistline directed him to file in the state court system. Miller lost his case at the Superior (trial) court and the state Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Superior Court's ruling.

From the US District Court, where Miller's federal case resides, the next stop is a Circuit Court of Appeals proceeding, and the final stop is the US Supreme Court which may or may not grant Certiorari to hear the case, assuming Miller pursues the case beyond the federal trial level.

Constitutional Arguments
In its court filings, the Miller legal team pointed out several issues that require further review including: whether the U.S. Constitution’s Election Clause was violated by ignoring the legislature’s mandatory provisions for write-in candidates; whether the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause was violated by the different vote counting standards that were applied, dependent on the candidate in question; and other issues such as at least hundreds of felons voting and at least hundreds of ballots being filled out by a handful of people.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Miller Reviews Impact of State High Court Decision on Federal Case

US Senate candidate Joe Miller said in a press release issued last night that his campaign will be reviewing the Alaska Supreme court ruling to see what outstanding issues remain to be brought in his federal case. Miller has until Monday, December 27 to bring these issues to US District Judge Ralph Beistline, and the state has until December 29 to respond. Fox News provided a good synopsis and developed the story, since news of the ruling broke yesterday.

In his press release, Miller said:
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 interpretation 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."

###

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Breaking: AK Supreme Court Rules Against Miller on All Counts

The Anchorage Daily News tonight reported that the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled against US Senate Candidate Joe Miller on all counts in his election lawsuit, upholding in its entirety the ruling of the lower court.

The state's Supreme Court said that no issues remain that block certifying the election win of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski. Miller has 48 hours to argue any federal Constitutional issues in the federal court. US District Court Judge Ralph Beistline will "decide as soon as possible" on whether to lift the injunction he had ordered barring the State of Alaska from certifying the election.

See:


Alaska Supreme Court Ruling: Miller vs. Treadwell, State of Alaska Division of Elections, and Lisa Murkowski

Video from the appeal hearing

Complete Transcript of Alaska Superior Court Ruling: Miller v. Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell, and Alaska DOE.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Joe Miller Vote Count Appeal Hearing Videos

 

http://www.ktuu.com/videobeta/f0949e99-c230-47a9-a61d-6f4b6df3b0a0/News/VIDEO-Joe-Miller-court-appeal-Miller-attorney-Michael-Morley

(KTUU-DT) Opening arguments from Joe Miller attorney Michael Morley.ktuu

 

http://www.ktuu.com/videobeta/fdff80ca-672f-40a7-8af5-423cdb566bb5/News/VIDEO-Joe-Miller-court-appeal-Scott-Kendall-attorney-for-Sen-Lisa-Murkowski

(KTUU-DT) Video 2 of the hearing. Scott Kendall, an attorney for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, presents his case.


 

http://www.ktuu.com/videobeta/e5e9f08d-a8bf-49ca-bf43-e369b08974cd/News/VIDEO-Joe-Miller-Court-Appeal-Joanne-Grace-attorney-for-Division-of-Election

(KTUU-DT) Joanne Grace, attorney for the Division of Elections, presents to the court in the third video portion of the hearing. We experienced a server error for about 10 minutes and have cut out the portion of Grace's presentation, which we continue in the next clip.

 


http://www.ktuu.com/videobeta/6dc6f658-3d8a-420e-9746-90ef65d3ea6a/News/VIDEO-Joe-Miller-Court-Appeal-Joanne-Grace-attorney-for-Div-of-Elections


(KTUU-DT) Video #4, part 2 of Joanne Grace's presentation to the court. Grace is an attorney for the Division of Elections. We pick up on this clip as our server error was fixed.



 

http://www.ktuu.com/videobeta/b77d16d7-108b-4bb8-be65-cdf17d96d622/News/VIDEO-Joe-Miller-Court-Appeal-Michael-Morley-closing-statements

(KTUU-DT) Michael Morley, an attorney for Joe Miller, makes closing arguments in the Alaska Supreme Court.

Joe Miller yesterday issued a press release about the hearing, an excerpted transcript of which follows:


In Miller vs. Treadwell, the Supreme Court of Alaska heard oral arguments from our attorney, who emphasized the same points that we’ve made all along:
  • The Alaska legislature established a clear, bright-line test for determining the validity of write-in ballots to prevent bureaucrats and state officials from influencing the outcome of elections by deciding which ballots to count.
  • State law forbids for the Division of Elections to review thousands of write-in ballots that were rejected by automated tally machine without doing the same for other candidates who appeared on the ballot.
During the oral arguments, the Supreme Court appeared concerned that a lower-level court ruled in favor of the State of Alaska without giving our side a chance to gather evidence on a number of troubling situations that appear to violate existing election laws:
  • According to official state records, thousands of people were permitted to vote without showing identification.
  • The handwriting on all the write-in ballots from several precincts was the same, or appeared to be written by only a few people.
A review by our campaign revealed that several hundred convicted sex offenders voted, which may indicate a wider problem of hundreds or thousands of ballots cast by those who were ineligible to do so.

The tenor of the Court's questions shows that it believes we have raised substantial legal questions. All we are asking is that the Supreme Court applies the plain text of Alaska law as written.

The State of Alaska clearly wants the Supreme Court to ignore this evidence and hope that the election was conducted correctly without any type of vigorous investigation.

The core American values of equal protection under the law and fundamental fairness require that the Miller ballots are counted and reviewed in the same fashion as Lisa Murkowski’s, by hand, and that the final count include only those who were actually eligible to cast a ballot.

This court case is about ensuring a fair and democratic election is held in Alaska.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

AK Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Miller Election Case

The Alaska Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments in US Senate candidate Joe Miller's vote count case, as reported by the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) and his campaign. Miller has two attorneys representing him: Thomas Van Flein for matters of Alaska law and Michael Morley for matters of federal law. The Alaska Supreme Court is the final stop in the state legal journey for this case. Miller is seeking a hand re-count of all ballots cast and to apply a strict interpretation of the state's election law, which would require correct spelling. The state used "voter intent," which the Alaska Superior Court (the trial court) upheld.

"The [Alaska Supreme] 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," Miller's campaign said in a press release about the hearing.

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."

###

Friday, December 17, 2010

Murkowski Pays Back Native Supporters 15-Fold in Earmarks

Ed. Note: In Alaska, it is very highly improper to refer to Natives as "Indian." The word "Indian" is being used in this instance because it is quoted as part of a headline in a story being cited. The numbers are also even greater than the author wrote.

In "Christmas Comes Early… RINO Murkowski Pays Back Indian Supporters Ten-Fold!" Jim Hoft details over $26 million in earmarks Alaska's Native Corporations have secured from Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the past month. These federal 8a corporations banded together to form a "Super PAC" pouring $1.7 million into Murkowski's write-in campaign. The FY 2011 Omnibus Earmarks Database delineates Sen. Murkowski's earmarks.

Put in Return-on-Investment (ROI) terms, the Native Corporations got at 15.29% return. In The Miller-Murkowski Fiasco: Follow the Money, I wrote:

Alaska’s Regional Native Corporations – Federal 8a entities – receive enormous amounts of money in the form of federal earmarks, in addition to being no-bid contractors. These multi-billion-dollar corporations are exempt from federal and shareholder oversight. They have foreign entanglements. They work at prices far above market rates. Nice work if you can get it.

Miller wrote an Op Ed in the Washington Times: Miller: Writing in Corruption, which detailed the inner workings of these 8a corporations and why Sen. Murkowski even bothered to do a write-in campaign after losing to Miller in the primary. The incumbent senator's condition for running was brutally simple: the 8a's needed to do a lot more than merely say they supported her. "I love Lisa" was not going to cut it. As a condition of running, Sen. Murkowski made clear her expectation that the 8as were going to expend significant get-out-the vote efforts. She would keep their earmark gravy train going. Miller, of course would have curtailed or eliminated most of the earmarks. Even the Democratic candidate was a threat, so the 8as who usually back Democrats supported Sen. Murkowski.

As we see from the foregoing, the 8as already got $26 million in earmarks, representing a 15.29% ROI and this is from Sen. Murkowski's current term. She has not even begun the term for which she declared victory. This is something to consider when analyzing Joe Millers vote count lawsuit. Arguments in the appeal on this case are to be heard later today.

HT KL for story lead

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Federal Judge to Alaska: You May Certify Election

The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) yesterday reported that a federal judge said Joe Miller's vote count litigation should not hamper the state of Alaska from certifying the US Senate race. "[The] certification could be revoked if done in error," U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline wrote in a court order. Judge Beistline asked both Miller and Sen. Murkowski to submit legal briefings pertaining to certification. The election must be certified prior to January 3, 2011, otherwise Sen. Murkowski will not be seated and she would lose her seniority on committees.

Miller is appealing the vote count litigation to Alaska's Supreme Court with arguments to be heard Friday, December 17, 2010. The Alaska Superior Court (trial court) ruled against him on all six counts this past Friday. See: Complete Transcript of Alaska Superior Court Ruling: Miller v. Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell, and Alaska DOE.

If Miller loses his case in the state Supreme Court, Judge Beistline would hear the outstanding issues at the federal level. Miller spokesman Randy DeSoto said Miller is willing to take the case up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

Either way, the state is taking a gamble. If the state expedites certification and Alaska's Supreme Court rules in Miller's favor, the election would be de-certified, Sen. Murkowski's would be un-seated, followed by re-certification for Miller and seating of Miller. The process is probably far more complex and could spawn a host of other legal issues. If the state waits for all the legal issues to be resolved, the election remains un-certified with no winner and only Senator Mark Begich (D) representing Alaska.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Miller Appeals Vote Count Case to AK Supreme Court

Alaska US Senate candidate Joe Miller appealed his vote count case to the Alaska Supreme Court, according to the Anchorage Daily News and a press release from his campaign. The Alaska Superior Court (trial court) ruled against him on all six counts this past Friday. See: Complete Transcript of Alaska Superior Court Ruling: Miller v. Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell, and Alaska DOE. The appeal leaves the federal injunction in place barring certification of the election. Following is the complete transcript of the Miller campaign's press release on the appeal:
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."

###

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Miller: Hand-Count All Ballots

Joe Miller's campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto last night issued a statement regarding the AK State Superior Court ruling on his vote count lawsuit.
"The purpose of the legal action is to ensure that the integrity of the vote is upheld. The Miller Campaign believes that every valid write-in ballot should be counted, but not those that fail to meet the standard established by the state legislature. Additionally, the core American values of equal protection under the law and fundamental fairness in this election require that the Miller ballots are counted and reviewed in the same fashion as Lisa Murkowski's, by hand, and that the count includes only those who are eligible to vote. When we've ensured that these issues have been addressed, then we'll have an accurate count, and if Lisa Murkowski's tally is greater than Joe's, then he will certainly honor that result."

Synopsis of Alaska Superior Court Ruling

Miller lost the case on all counts. See: Complete Transcript of Alaska Superior Court Ruling: Miller v. Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell, and Alaska DOE.

The court ruled (contrary to Miller's statement above) that the nature of write-in ballots requires a hand-counting procedure when a single write-in candidate has what appears to be the majority of the votes. Miller's name was on machine ballots and votes for him were tallied according to procedures for those ballots. His name also appeared on some write-in ballots and those were counted by hand.

The judge ruled that his interpretation of Alaska's electoral statute was too strict. He also ruled that Murkowski's interpretation of the same statute was too broad. Her motion to have ballots counted that did not have the oval filled in next to her name was denied. The judge ruled that the matter of spelling was moot, because even with the challenged ballots tossed, the incumbent still won by over 2,000 votes. A ruling for or against Miller on spelling of candidate's name does not change the outcome of the election.

The court dismissed Miller's claims of voter fraud as unsubstantiated.

The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) variously reported that Miller has until close of court business on Monday or Tuesday December 13 - 14 to appeal the case to Alaska's Supreme Court, a decision he has not announced as yet.

The state is also asking the federal court to lift its injunction against certifying the election, now that the Superior Court has issued its ruling, so that Murkowski will be seated in the 2011 Congress.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Miller Vote Case to be Decided Friday

The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) tonight reported that an Alaska judge will issue his ruling on Joe Miller's ballot count lawsuit this Friday, December 10. If the ruling goes in Miller's favor, thousands of ballots cast for the incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski would be reviewed and a re-count would likely ensue. In this circumstance, Murkowski would not be seated in the next Congress and could lose her seniority on key committees. The judge could also deny Miller's claim. Either outcome would result in an appeal to Alaska's Supreme Court.

Miller outlined his arguments from today's hearing in a press release, the complete transcript of which follows below:
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.

###

Monday, December 6, 2010

Miller to Begich: Get Back to Work; Raises $241K Since Election; Faces Email Probe

In response to Sen. Mark Begich's statement asking Joe Miller to drop his legal challenge to election issues, Miller told Begich to "get back to work and stop wasting time in D.C." From his press release issued today:

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."

Some of the transcript from Begich's statement is in this ADN report.

In other news, the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) tonight reported that Joe Miller has raised $241,000 since the election, presumably for expenses pertaining to his legal electoral challenges. The ADN also reported that Miller's former employer is threatening to pursue an Alaska Bar Association investigation if he does not respond to questions about missing emails. Miller's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein said that he complied with his prior employer's email policies and provided printed copies. A Miller spokesperson said the renewed inquiry was harassment.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

The Miller-Murkowski Fiasco: Follow the Money

Since Gov. Palin endorsed Joe Miller and since he became one of my adopted candidates on Organize4Palin, I've been covering news related to the AK Senate election and naturally running formatted advertisements and press releases from the Miller campaign. As regular readers know, the AK Senate election is mired in a court battle, because the State of Alaska deigned to use "voter intent" rather than follow the law in how write-in ballots are to be counted.

ADN's Hit Piece

The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) today published what can best be characterized as a hit piece on Joe Miller. The article implies that Joe Miller is akin to a petulant child, who should just "quit," "know his place," and let Sen. Murkowski "take what she won" and move on. Why? Sen. Murkowski might lose her seniority on Senate committees, and that would be a such a tragedy. Alaska would be denied her representation while this matter is resolved. Why the state might slide off Canada and sink in the ocean without the great Murkowski's representation, and it's all bad old Miller's fault with that blasted lawsuit of his!

Follow the Money

Let's get real. Let's follow the money. Alaska's Regional Native Corporations - Federal 8a entities - receive enormous amounts of money in the form of federal earmarks, in addition to being no-bid contractors. These multi-billion-dollar corporations are exempt from federal and shareholder oversight. They have foreign entanglements. They work at prices far above market rates. Nice work if you can get it.

From Miller's letter to the Washington Times:
[Native] corporations made dizzying profits using their “disadvantaged” status to gain federal work, in practice they did very little to lift the lives of most Alaskan Natives. While the desperate poverty of many villages has remained unchanged over the past 30 years, the corporations have sprouted a crop of shiny new office buildings in Anchorage. And while unemployment in native villages continues to be unimaginable, white corporate officers of many of these corporations profit handsomely.

Native Corporations: Earmarks or Bust

The Native corporate officers and their shareholders are the ones desperate for Murkowski - at any cost. After all, the conservative Joe Miller, backed by Gov. Palin and Tea Party Express was going to shut off or at the least curtail the 8a gravy train that only Murkowski pledged to continue. Something had to be done to reverse the Miller juggernaut, and while these corporations are traditionally in the tank for the Democrats, the Democratic candidate was not their meal ticket either. They wanted Murkowski and her earmarks. Thus, their traditional support of Democrats went out the window. This took a lot of doing.

Chicanery

In his letter to the Washington Times, Miller described the chicanery pulled by these corporations to ensure their candidate won, thus keeping their gravy train running. The Native corporations spared no expense in ensuring Natives knew how to write Murkowski's name on the ballot, from paid workers going door-to-door, to wristbands, and campaign materials. They did not anticipate the gift of voter intent and figured Alaska's election law was going to actually be followed. But, these Native corporations did provide "security" for the completed ballots enroute to their counting sites. That should give average Alaskans a real warm and fuzzy feeling and confidence that their votes were actually counted. Did I tell you that I have a bridge connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn for sale? It was built in 1883 and I've got a special running on it for today only.

The ADN conveniently omitted these minor details. Something is rotten in the State of Alaska with this US Senate election, and it distills to that earmark gravy train. Far from being tragic, if Miller's lawsuit denies Alaska Murkowski's representation for a while, I think he would be doing the state and the nation a huge favor. The lack of Murkowski's representation means less debt being added to the $14-trillion train wreck we now have.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Miller: Writing in Corruption

Following is a Op Ed column from Joe Miller as printed in the Washington Times:
Lisa Murkowski proved this past week that she has learned nothing from the message of the midterm elections. The main issues that drove people to the polls and created a Republican landslide were the beliefs that our nation is on the wrong track and that government spending has gotten completely out of control.

Within weeks of the election, Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich voted to retain the wasteful and corrupting earmarks they cherish. The new House majority, and even President Obama, have committed to banning earmarks.

No one should be surprised that Mrs. Murkowski is willing to make this last charge of the big spenders (no matter how futile) because she does have a lot of special interests to pay off, none more so than the Alaska Native Regional Corporations. These multibillion-dollar corporations, formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and repeatedly protected from shareholder oversight by legislation shepherded by the Murkowski-Stevens-Young delegation, poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the tiny Alaska media market in a slimy, no-holds-barred effort to keep Mrs. Murkowski in office.

Why? To guarantee these corporations' continued protection from federal and shareholder oversight and to maintain the exceptionally wasteful no-bid federal contracts awarded to their subsidiaries.

How did they do it? Through the creation of a "superPAC" named Alaskans Standing Together (AST) and designed to help Mrs. Murkowski defeat not only me, the Republican nominee, but more surprisingly, Scott McAdams, the Democratic nominee. Historically, Alaskan Natives are reliable Democratic voters. This time, however, the regional corporations made a concerted effort to persuade Alaskan Natives to vote for the candidate who could best increase the flow of federal dollars to Alaska.

But I refused to lie to the Alaskan people. Recognizing the impossibility of increasing federal expenditures in the face of an already catastrophic debt load, I signed a no-earmarks pledge and promised to cut spending. I urged a vigorous fight to open the state's rich resources to revitalize rural Alaska. But the regional corporations apparently thought federal largesse was a better option than self-sufficiency. The immorality of spending our children's and grandchildren's money seemingly was irrelevant to them.

Local media reported the decision to support Lisa Murkowski going down in this manner: A group of leaders from the regional corporations and native organizations invited Mrs. Murkowski to a meeting. They told her, "We really need you to run, we really want you to run." They expressed their appreciation for the past support she had given them. Mrs. Murkowski responded that she appreciated their words but warned that a run as a write-in candidate is "a very heavy lift." She made it clear that it was not enough for those "CEOs to stand up and give me your support. I would need to know that it goes out into every village."

That's exactly what happened. AST hit the airways with hundreds of thousands of dollars in attack ads, making numerous false allegations regarding my positions and background. Within a mere three weeks, AST spent $1.2 million, inundating the Alaska market. It also hired dozens of workers to travel to the villages to teach people how to vote for Lisa Murkowski. They even painted vans with AST's logo to bus people to the polls.

To recognize how unseemly this is, you need to know a little about Alaska Native 8(a) corporations. They are no-bid federal contractors. They get billions in federal taxpayer dollars to undertake building and other projects not just throughout the state of Alaska, but across the country and overseas. These corporations typically partner with or subcontract to nonnative entities that do the work while the native corporations pocket significant profits that the market could never justify.

I argued during the campaign that this 8(a) program demanded reform, in large part because it was ripping off the American taxpayer. But I also argued that while the native corporations made dizzying profits using their "disadvantaged" status to gain federal work, in practice they did very little to lift the lives of most Alaskan Natives. While the desperate poverty of many villages has remained unchanged over the past 30 years, the corporations have sprouted a crop of shiny new office buildings in Anchorage. And while unemployment in native villages continues to be unimaginable, white corporate officers of many of these corporations profit handsomely.

Reform and cutting wasteful government spending threatened these federally enabled fiefdoms, so they sought out their candidate and did all they could to put her into office. There is something odious to the American political experiment in having corporations dependent upon taxpayer money for their very existence turn around and use that money to hire workers to teach people how to vote for one candidate over another. Yet that is precisely what happened in Alaska. Scores of materials went out to the native villages - wristbands and campaign literature - and hired workers went door-to-door teaching people how to write Lisa Murkowski's name on the ballot.

The native population apparently got the message. Supermajorities of numerous villages that had gone strongly Democratic in previous elections voted for Mrs. Murkowski last month.

One native leader proudly boasted on Election Day that his people had made history. If Mrs. Murkowski survives the inevitable recount of ballots(ballots that were transported and "secured" by an Alaska Native corporation), native leaders have said there will be no quid pro quo expected from their efforts - central to Mrs. Murkowski's attempt to retain her office.

Mrs. Murkowski, I'm sure, will publicly claim the same, but her recent vote and statement opposing the earmark ban indicate she still wants to direct money within Alaska to her pet projects. Will anyone be shocked to find her attempting to target funds benefiting native corporations, as in times past?

Joe Miller was the winner of the 2010 Republican Senate primary in Alaska.

###

View the letter as printed in the Washington Times and add your comments:

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/lisa-murkowski-proved-this-past-week-that-she-has-/

Friday, December 3, 2010

Miller: Four Important Things

Serious legal issues, allegations of voter fraud, and both sides in the Alaska US Senate Race claiming uncounted ballots have resulted in a complicated legal quagmire with no apparent end in sight. The election cannot be certified until the issues are resolved. A hand-count of all the ballots could change the outcome of the election.









Three things you need to know:

* First, a federal judge has ruled that there are serious legal issues which the Alaska courts must decide before the election can be certified. And less than 1% of the uncontested ballots separate Murkowski and me.

* Second, just today, Murkowski's attorneys argued in court that the two thousand ballots that weren't counted for her may make the difference in this election! In other words, Murkowski has now admitted that this is a very, very tight race where every ballot counts.

* Third, numerous of affidavits have now been filed attesting to serious charges of election neglect and seemingly outright fraud.

* Fourth, Lisa Murkowski is back in Washington voting for more wasteful spending and pork barrel projects to pay off special interests which spent $1.5 million to attack me this election.

Let’s review how we got here.

Lisa Murkowski refused to accept the will of the voters in August when we won the Republican primary. She then ventured on with a costly write-in campaign, breaking her vow to accept the results. She, with the assistance of multi-billion dollar special-interest corporations, then engaged a vicious -- and false -- smear campaign.

After the election we were obligated to provide staff for a circus-like ballot counting effort, which resulted in no known victor. The cost of housing, feeding, and transporting the dozens of volunteers
and legal staff was not insignificant.


Now it’s onto the courts.

Alaska state law forbids the counting of write-in votes that do not match the name of the candidate as set forth in the candidate's declaration form, and because the state legislature declared that there will be "no exceptions" to this law, we are challenging the Division of Election's arbitrary decision to ignore this statute.

Also, hundreds – and perhaps even more than 1,000 – of "Joe Miller" ballots were not counted because of the undeniable under-counting by Alaska's automated machine tally. Murkowski's ballots, on
the other hand, received a hand count that resulted in over 1,500 more votes than what the machines tallied.

We have also raised substantive and procedural concerns arising out of the state's creation of a new voting regulation that was never publicized, never vetted for public input, and completely lacked an enabling statute. Under the state Administrative Procedure Act, the regulation should be declared invalid, and that is what the complaint is seeking.

It’s up to the courts now, and we look forward to making our case for a fair election.
Thank you for your support.




Joe Miller



Paid for by Joe Miller for US Senate Defense Fund





Thursday, December 2, 2010

Miller: Murkowski Questions Write-In Ballots

The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) yesterday reported that the State of Alaska seeks to have the legal issues surrounding the US Senate election ruled upon by December 9. After this date, continuation of the case through appeals or return to the federal courts mean that the winning Senator would not be seated for the next Congress. In Sen. Murkowski's case, it also means that she risks losing seniority on key committees.

Meanwhile, Alaska Superior Court Judge William Carey yesterday held a hearing on Sen. Murkowski's intervention pleading, deferring a ruling till today, citing "serious legal issues" she had raised.

Interestingly, “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.

Alaska Vote Count header


State Raises Concerns About Ballot Security; Court Transfers Case to Juneau


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.”

###
P.S. Help us ensure a fair vote count in Alaska. Please click here to donate a gift of $100, $75, $50, or $25.








Paid for by Joe Miller for US Senate Recount