Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:58:21 -0600
Subject: Alaska's Gail Fenumiai - The Fox Guarding the Hen House
From: amywalker@joemiller.us
Joe Miller Champions: Stay tuned this race is far from over! Please support Joe Miller's defense fund at http://www.joemiller.us
Alaska's Gail Fenumiai - The Fox Guarding the Hen House
By Thomas Lamb | 11/22/10 | 2:54 AM EST |Last Friday, Federal District Court Judge Ralph Beistline granted U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller's motion seeking a stay on certifying the election and retained federal jurisdiction in the matter. In his motion, Miller indicated he would be conducting a hand count given a ruling that would adhere to the strict standard of Alaska's election laws. The success of the hand count would hinge on how many of Miller's ballots were not counted.
Given the importance of a hand count, according to a source, when two of Joe Miller's observers went to check in on an audit the Alaska Division of Elections was conducting, the observers witnessed that there was no security at the audit and the observers witnessed an election worker taking ballots and putting them in their personal vehicle.
According to state law, the Division of Elections is to provide for security.
All official ballots in the possession of election officials, whether voted or not voted, shall be kept in a secure manner until destroyed in accordance with law. The director shall provide for the security of ballots during transportation and storage under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act). Ms. Fenumiai clearly violated state law by allowing ballots to be transported in an unsecured manner. What else hasn't been reported in the news is: an audit (audit is in attachment below) was conducted on 40 (out of 438) precincts in Alaska and out of the 40 precincts while most had a 100% accuracy in the vote count, some had a significant amount of votes missed.
In District 24, precinct 555, there were 43 missed votes. In District 33, precinct 710, there were 70 missed votes and in District 37, precinct 714, there were 28 missed votes. There were other precincts that had from 1 to 6 missed votes, but given there have been questions on if Joe Miller could gain ground on Lisa Murkowski's undisputed votes, the audit suggests that indeed, Joe Miller could gain on the undisputed votes. Moreover, there is a question on 1500 write-in votes that had been found on the last day of the count. On the Division of Elections; website there is the figure 102252 write-in votes.. On the same website, in another link, the total of write-in votes is 103805. The two figure are in contradiction to each other and according to a source, the division's director stated that approximately 1500 ballots had not been counted because the ovals were not filled in.
The question is where did the ballots end up in the count. Were they put in the challenged ballots not counted? No, because the figure is only 2016 and it grew by a few hundred votes the next day. Other ballots were entered into the challenged not counted group. Were the ballots entered into the challenged ballots not counted? No, because the count did not raise by 1500 votes from the previous day. So were the newly found ballots placed into the write-in count? There is only one place the 1500 votes could have been placed and that is in Murkowski's undisputed count.
The idea that Murkowski has approximately a 2000 ballot lead, it is setting on a shaky footing in that there are ballots that should have been challenged in her undisputed count.
Adding to the question on the integrity of the count, affidavits have been filed stating there are ballots that have the same handwriting on them with no indication that they were ballots cast by people with disabilities. There were missing ballots and envelopes with ballots that were not properly sealed. And voter roles with similar signatures on the signature block.
There is one interesting fact that was told to me and it deals with logs that date back to the 2008 presidential election and this election. From what was told, the information contained in the logs is damning. All I can say is, once this case unfolds, Governor Parnell and Lt. Governor Campbell will have a big blemish on their record given they let Ms. Fenumiai guard the hen house.
Joe Miller - Beating Back Bad Election Case Law and Discrimination
By Thomas Lamb | 11/19/10 | 5:51 AM ESTThe Miller campaign has filed a motion in federal court seeking an injunction to stop the Alaska Division of Elections from certifying the U.S. Senate election.
In support of the motion, former Lt. Governor Loren Leman filed an affidavit in support of the motion.
The affidavit can be read here.
The bottom line in the affidavit is: the argument over a candidate being misspelled on a ballot was never addressed.
Interestingly, Loren Leman pointed to the case Edgmon vs. The State of Alaska that was handed down by the Alaska Supreme Court.
The gist of the argument hinged on the concept of voter intent and ignored federal case law, namely the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bush vs. Gore.
And I imagine the State of Alaska will continue with their efforts to try and have the case dismissed from the federal court.
If the state is not successful and the federal court maintains jurisdiction and hears the case, the State of Alaska will most likely try to use state court decisions to show that the states are in agreement on case law and no conflict among the states exists.
If the State of Alaska does argue this point, they will be arguing from a weak point in that the case decision in Edgmon vs. The State of Alaska is flawed in that the decision has opened the door for corruption in the election process to occur and the Alaska Supreme Court's decision is in conflict with Bush.
In Edgmon, The Alaska Supreme Court stated that overvotes should not be thrown out:
The third allegedly overvoted ballot has an "X" in the oval next to Moses's name and a line striking through Edgmon's name and the oval next to it. This ballot is not overvoted and should be counted. In all other races, the voter indicated a vote with a single "X" in the oval next to one candidate's name. The line extending through Edgmon's name cannot be said to indicate an intent to cast a vote for Edgmon. Instead, a marking crossing or striking out a candidate's name accompanied by a vote for the other candidate suggests an emphatic vote against a candidate. Where accompanied by an "X" in the oval next to the other candidate's name in the same manner as all other votes on the ballot, the line through Edgmon's name and the oval next to it is a stray marking. The ballot is not overvoted and should be counted as a vote for Moses.
There was a reason why a strict adherence to the law was argued by then Lt. Governor Loren Leman. Trying to to determine voter's intent when the ballot has been altered, is unquestionably foolhardy because the ballots can be altered after the vote is cast.To say otherwise is naive and is the reason why voter fraud can exist.
The following picture makes this argument.
According to the Alaska Supreme Court's case decision on voter intent, this overvote should be counted.
The question should be asked, should it? The answer is no because given that the original vote was cast in black ink and then crossed out, this should cause concern that the vote was changed after the original vote was cast.
Trying to determine voter intent would be like trying to predict the future. You can't.
Interestingly in the photo, it is evident that a change was made to the oval to the right that was related to the bond issues. The oval was also filled in with a blue ink pen. You have to ask, were the ovals left blank by the person who used the black pen?
The Alaska Supreme Court's case decision can in fact, lead to a voter being disenfranchised by their vote being changed and it doesn't have to happen with a different colored pen.
And as had been shown in a previous post, the Alaska Division of Elections ignored the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling by ignoring a vote where the oval was crossed out next to a written Lisa Murkowski and the oval was marked in for Scott McAdams.
The Alaska Division of Elections has acted in a discriminatory manner in this election, thus raising the protection found in the Voting Rights Act.
The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states with a history of discriminatory voting practices (so-called "covered jurisdictions") could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice, a process known as preclearance.[5]
The Alaska Division of Elections has treated similar overvote ballots cast, in a different manner.That is a clear violation of federal law and the federal constitution..
It can be said, if the photo above was entered into evidence, an argument can call into question the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling making the proper jurisdiction for this case the federal court.
Moreover, Miller is in the position of establishing a case decision that can overturn a bad case decision handed down by the Alaska Supreme Court that can lead to a corrupted election process.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Thanks for all your help and support for Joe!
Looking forward to victory for Joe and a bright future in the Great Land,
Amy Walker
Joe Miller Volunteer Coordinator
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This message may contain privileged or confidential information and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named addressee you should not review, disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this errant message.
Posts
