If you have read any of my recent posts [on facebook where this was originally posted] concerning the Alaska senate race, you may be a bit confused as to where I stand. This is because over the last few days I have come to a different understanding of the situation.
There is a big dispute over what should be counted as a vote for Lisa Murkowski. My initial reaction was that as long as voter intent is clear, a vote should count.
Voter Intent
However, this still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and who is it who gets to interpret? I realized that if there were a vote for "Lisa Malancholiowsky" it shouldn't count. But I was torn on this because voter intent is still pretty clear here. If a voter had voted thus, I would be 99.9% sure that they had intended the vote to go for Lisa Murkowski. Still, I reasoned that as long as the spelling was phonetic, such as "Mercowsky", it should count.
I suppose I have been gracious because I am aware that others are not always as sensitive to or as good at spelling things correctly as I am.
Picky Cheaters?
While I am an adamant Miller supporter, my reaction to the ballots his people are challenging was the same as a Murkowski supporter's reaction might be. I was disgusted that people would try to throw out someone's vote on a technicality.
I was confused and wondered if I had been wrong about Mr. Miller's character.
But today I had a kind of an epiphany.
What the Law Says
Alaska state statute 15.15.360. states that:
(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate's name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.
(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.*
Interpretation of the Law
Yesterday, I looked at this carefully and it occurred to me that perhaps the crafters of this statute only intended to prevent acceptance of votes that were for initials (LM, JWM, etc.), for nicknames (The Governator, The Gipper, Princess Lisa, Joe, Leelee, etc.), or first names alone (Joe, Joseph, Lisa, etc.).
Today it occurred to me how foolish I'd been. It is the job of the lawmaker to debate and consider what should be covered in a law. No matter how ill-conceived a law may look, it is our duty to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did their job and made the law to be exactly what they desired and saw fit.
The law must be implemented the way it was written. If someone does not like the law the way it is, he ought to work to overturn or amend it through legal means. It is never acceptable to simply ignore what the law says because you do not like it or believe that those who wrote it didn't know what they were doing. (Lest you think that I would never engage in "civil disobedience," let me clarify. There is a difference between defying a law and ignoring it. If you defy a law, you acknowledge its existence and humbly accept any consequences or punishment for defying it.)
The Law, Whether You Like it or Not
The law says that a vote for a write-in candidate must be written "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." Therefore, unless Senator Murkowski put her name as "Markovsky" or "Murkoskie" on her application, such votes should not be counted.
Is this fair? It doesn't matter; it's the law. I do believe that there are higher laws than the ones put into place by man, but we are a nation of laws. If we go against a law, choosing to interpret it as we see fit, it gives license for every other law to be broken, as well. A law is meaningless if we allow it to be "interpreted" at will.
Laws are not meant to be interpreted, they're meant to be followed. Contrary to popular belief, a judge's job is not to interpret the law, but to determine if someone has broken it. A judge sits in judgment of people and proposed laws, not in judgment of the existing law.
Once again, if you believe a law to be flawed, by all means, work to change it! Ignoring it is not the solution.
Voter Responsibility
Should the law be as it is or should it be changed to accept minor misspellings? Initially, I thought that it should be changed. However, I have since changed my mind. I'll tell you why.
Whether the law stays as it is or not, a voter has a responsibility to know what that law is and to make sure that he follows it when he votes. I did not feel inclined to vote for Lisa Murkowski. However, if I had, I know that I would have looked up the law and then when I was in the voting booth, I would have looked over my ballot multiple times to be certain that I had done everything properly:
1. Filled in or marked the oval for the write-in candidate for the correct office? Check.
2. Wrote the candidate's name on the line for a write-in for the correct office? Check.
3. Spelled the candidate's name correctly? "M U R K O W S K I" Check.
If I thought I'd have trouble with the spelling, I would have included at the top of that list: Wearing my "Murkowski" bracelet for reference? Check.
It is my responsibility, not the government's, to make sure my ballot is filled out correctly. If my vote is thrown out because I wrote "Lisa Mercowskey", failed to fill in the oval, inanely filled in the ovals by the names of all of the senate candidates, or decided to "fix" a mistake on my ballot rather than asking for a new one, it is no one's fault but my own.
It was not Joe Miller, Lisa Murkowski, volunteers, or election officials who made the decision to throw out my vote, it was I who made the decision by being careless.
While these people must deal with thousands upon thousands of ballots, you have ONE ballot to worry about; yours. Make sure your intent is clear. It is not the job of the election officials to spend hours trying to decipher if you meant to be voting for Lisa Murkowski or Liza Minnelli.
Intent is not the issue. It is not the responsibility of election officials to make sure that your vote counts no matter how bad they feel that your vote for "Josephine Miller" is being discarded when they believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that you intended to vote for Joe Miller.
It is sad if your vote doesn't count because of a little mistake, but it is also sad when the neighbor's cat dies because you accidentally ran over it. It is still your responsibility, not the responsibility of the car, the car manufacturer, the car salesman, or your driving instructor. While we may accept that your intent was definitely not to run over the cat, the cat is still dead and you must face the consequences. It is not anyone else's job to "fix" this for you.
In the same way, when a teacher grades a research paper, he still has to take away points for misspelled words and improper grammar and punctuation, even if the content is good and he understands the author's intent. This is far from a perfect analogy, but it is enough to get the point, I believe.
Instead of insisting that Daddy Government checks your work for you AFTER you turn it in (at the expense of the tax-payers, most of whom filled out their ballots correctly), check your work BEFORE you turn it in and there won't be any need of special favors.
It has occurred to me since I originally wrote this and posted it as a note on facebook, that any time a ballot is not filled out exactly as the voter is instructed to fill it out, voter intent is NOT clear.
For instance, if someone wrote in the name "Lisa MurkyCOWsky" and filled in the oval next to it completely, who would you say the vote was for? It is quite close to "Lisa Murkowski", so some would say it should be counted for her. However, it is also quite possible that the voter wrote this as a protest vote, meaning "None of the above, especially Murkowski!" (An inappropriate jab at the senator, in my opinion, but I know there are people who would do it.)
While voting should not be a spelling contest, sadly, there is no way to tell what one's intent is unless the spelling is correct.
On the other hand, of course, those who choose to cast protest votes such as the example above should realize that their votes could easily be misconstrued by those who would take an extremely liberal interpretation of the law. However, we must give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they did this knowing that by law, their votes would not count for Senator Murkowski. Anyone who tries to make such votes count is doing these votes an injustice.
_______________________________________
*To read the entire statute for yourself, go to: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title15/Chapter15/Section360.htm
There is a big dispute over what should be counted as a vote for Lisa Murkowski. My initial reaction was that as long as voter intent is clear, a vote should count.
Voter Intent
However, this still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and who is it who gets to interpret? I realized that if there were a vote for "Lisa Malancholiowsky" it shouldn't count. But I was torn on this because voter intent is still pretty clear here. If a voter had voted thus, I would be 99.9% sure that they had intended the vote to go for Lisa Murkowski. Still, I reasoned that as long as the spelling was phonetic, such as "Mercowsky", it should count.
I suppose I have been gracious because I am aware that others are not always as sensitive to or as good at spelling things correctly as I am.
Picky Cheaters?
While I am an adamant Miller supporter, my reaction to the ballots his people are challenging was the same as a Murkowski supporter's reaction might be. I was disgusted that people would try to throw out someone's vote on a technicality.
I was confused and wondered if I had been wrong about Mr. Miller's character.
But today I had a kind of an epiphany.
What the Law Says
Alaska state statute 15.15.360. states that:
(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate's name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.
(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.*
Interpretation of the Law
Yesterday, I looked at this carefully and it occurred to me that perhaps the crafters of this statute only intended to prevent acceptance of votes that were for initials (LM, JWM, etc.), for nicknames (The Governator, The Gipper, Princess Lisa, Joe, Leelee, etc.), or first names alone (Joe, Joseph, Lisa, etc.).
Today it occurred to me how foolish I'd been. It is the job of the lawmaker to debate and consider what should be covered in a law. No matter how ill-conceived a law may look, it is our duty to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did their job and made the law to be exactly what they desired and saw fit.
The law must be implemented the way it was written. If someone does not like the law the way it is, he ought to work to overturn or amend it through legal means. It is never acceptable to simply ignore what the law says because you do not like it or believe that those who wrote it didn't know what they were doing. (Lest you think that I would never engage in "civil disobedience," let me clarify. There is a difference between defying a law and ignoring it. If you defy a law, you acknowledge its existence and humbly accept any consequences or punishment for defying it.)
The Law, Whether You Like it or Not
The law says that a vote for a write-in candidate must be written "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." Therefore, unless Senator Murkowski put her name as "Markovsky" or "Murkoskie" on her application, such votes should not be counted.
Is this fair? It doesn't matter; it's the law. I do believe that there are higher laws than the ones put into place by man, but we are a nation of laws. If we go against a law, choosing to interpret it as we see fit, it gives license for every other law to be broken, as well. A law is meaningless if we allow it to be "interpreted" at will.
Laws are not meant to be interpreted, they're meant to be followed. Contrary to popular belief, a judge's job is not to interpret the law, but to determine if someone has broken it. A judge sits in judgment of people and proposed laws, not in judgment of the existing law.
Once again, if you believe a law to be flawed, by all means, work to change it! Ignoring it is not the solution.
Voter Responsibility
Should the law be as it is or should it be changed to accept minor misspellings? Initially, I thought that it should be changed. However, I have since changed my mind. I'll tell you why.
Whether the law stays as it is or not, a voter has a responsibility to know what that law is and to make sure that he follows it when he votes. I did not feel inclined to vote for Lisa Murkowski. However, if I had, I know that I would have looked up the law and then when I was in the voting booth, I would have looked over my ballot multiple times to be certain that I had done everything properly:
1. Filled in or marked the oval for the write-in candidate for the correct office? Check.
2. Wrote the candidate's name on the line for a write-in for the correct office? Check.
3. Spelled the candidate's name correctly? "M U R K O W S K I" Check.
If I thought I'd have trouble with the spelling, I would have included at the top of that list: Wearing my "Murkowski" bracelet for reference? Check.
It is my responsibility, not the government's, to make sure my ballot is filled out correctly. If my vote is thrown out because I wrote "Lisa Mercowskey", failed to fill in the oval, inanely filled in the ovals by the names of all of the senate candidates, or decided to "fix" a mistake on my ballot rather than asking for a new one, it is no one's fault but my own.
It was not Joe Miller, Lisa Murkowski, volunteers, or election officials who made the decision to throw out my vote, it was I who made the decision by being careless.
While these people must deal with thousands upon thousands of ballots, you have ONE ballot to worry about; yours. Make sure your intent is clear. It is not the job of the election officials to spend hours trying to decipher if you meant to be voting for Lisa Murkowski or Liza Minnelli.
Intent is not the issue. It is not the responsibility of election officials to make sure that your vote counts no matter how bad they feel that your vote for "Josephine Miller" is being discarded when they believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that you intended to vote for Joe Miller.
It is sad if your vote doesn't count because of a little mistake, but it is also sad when the neighbor's cat dies because you accidentally ran over it. It is still your responsibility, not the responsibility of the car, the car manufacturer, the car salesman, or your driving instructor. While we may accept that your intent was definitely not to run over the cat, the cat is still dead and you must face the consequences. It is not anyone else's job to "fix" this for you.
In the same way, when a teacher grades a research paper, he still has to take away points for misspelled words and improper grammar and punctuation, even if the content is good and he understands the author's intent. This is far from a perfect analogy, but it is enough to get the point, I believe.
Instead of insisting that Daddy Government checks your work for you AFTER you turn it in (at the expense of the tax-payers, most of whom filled out their ballots correctly), check your work BEFORE you turn it in and there won't be any need of special favors.
It has occurred to me since I originally wrote this and posted it as a note on facebook, that any time a ballot is not filled out exactly as the voter is instructed to fill it out, voter intent is NOT clear.
For instance, if someone wrote in the name "Lisa MurkyCOWsky" and filled in the oval next to it completely, who would you say the vote was for? It is quite close to "Lisa Murkowski", so some would say it should be counted for her. However, it is also quite possible that the voter wrote this as a protest vote, meaning "None of the above, especially Murkowski!" (An inappropriate jab at the senator, in my opinion, but I know there are people who would do it.)
While voting should not be a spelling contest, sadly, there is no way to tell what one's intent is unless the spelling is correct.
On the other hand, of course, those who choose to cast protest votes such as the example above should realize that their votes could easily be misconstrued by those who would take an extremely liberal interpretation of the law. However, we must give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they did this knowing that by law, their votes would not count for Senator Murkowski. Anyone who tries to make such votes count is doing these votes an injustice.
_______________________________________
*To read the entire statute for yourself, go to: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title15/Chapter15/Section360.htm
RSS Feed