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."

###