"Though the opinion is 34 pages long, its main points can be summarized in a few sentences. First, Joe Miller's main argument against the counting of misspelled Murkowski votes is moot because even if all of those ballots are excluded, Murkowski would still win. Second, even reaching the issue of statutory interpretation, case law from the Alaska Supreme Court mandates that courts construe ambiguous statutes so as not to disenfranchise voters for technical mistakes. (This is the democracy canon that I've written about in connection with this election.) Third, Miller is wrong that the rules the Division of Elections used for counting ballots violated Alaska's administrative procedure rules. And finally, Miller did not present any credible evidence of fraud to call the election into question."
Joe Miller Loses: What Does It Mean?
Election Law Blog:
