Senator Lisa Murkowski was defeated by a raucous Tea Party campaign in the Republican primary, but she decided to run as a write-in candidate, and is expected to win once all the write-in votes are counted.
Unless Miller's lawsuit, which contests every vote that isn't spelled exactly as "Murkowski" or "Lisa Murkowski", is upheld. A judge refused today to exempt minor spelling errors when the vote intent is reasonably clear. From the Anchorage Daily News:
(Judge) Fenumiai overruled the Miller campaign's challenges on ballots like those spelled "Merkowski," "Murkowsky," and "Murcowski." They'll be reviewed in the expected recount, if not the courts.Now, I don't know if the Murkowski campaign ran any advertising on how to spell her last name, which, let's face it, is more difficult to spell than a simpleton's name like "Miller" (just a random example here).
Miller campaign observers successfully challenged only 1.44 percent of the 19,203 ballots counted on Wednesday. Fenumiai agreed with challenges by the Miller campaign of ballots like "McCosky," "Misskowski" and "Morcowski."
Why didn't they run ads saying something like "Write in Murkowski on Nov. 2nd...that's MUR KOW SKI...M-U-R, K-O-W, S-K-I". That might have brought down the number of contested ballots from almost 10% to probably less than 5%. Then you're not giving a tea bagger anything to hang a lawsuit upon. Miller needs about 12% of the write-ins tossed to have a chance at winning.
Anyway, since there's absolutely no chance that the concept of "fair play" is included in the "Tea Bagger's Guide To Eletions", so you can look forward to a ridiculously drawn-out count, recount, lawsuit, appeal to the Supreme Court, etc. before this is over.
But in the end, "Mur-Kow-Ski" will prevail.
(...and I can't believe I'm rooting for a Republican!)