The Alaska Supreme Court today issued a per curiam decision rejecting each of Joe Miller’s challenges to Superior Court Judge Bill Carey’s earlier decision. Bottom line: Miller loses, again, and badly, even worse than in the Superior Court.
For example, here’s what the Alaska Supreme Court had to say about Miller’s argument that minor misspellings should invalidate the vote:
Miller urges that only his interpretation of the statute will “preserv[e] the integrity of the electoral process as a whole.” But it is Miller’s interpretation of the statute that would erode the integrity of the election system, because it would result in disenfranchisement of some voters and ultimately rejection of election results that constitute the will of the people. We have consistently construed election statutes in favor of voter enfranchisement.
When the Supreme Court turns your own argument against you, it’s a really bad sign.
Notably, the state supreme court takes Miller to task for choosing to initiate a lawsuit in federal court, rather than either obtaining a recount or filing an election contest. The case is in the Alaska state courts only because U.S. District Judge Beistline forced it there. By choosing the litigation path he did, Miller, in effect, limited the issues he could raise.
Whatever sympathy WC might feel for Miller’s pleading himself into a corner has to be tempered by Miller’s claim to have “mastered the law.” You see, Mr. Miller, we are stuck with the choices we make, the words we use and the tactics we choose.
Slight change of subject: All bloggers and most Alaskans are quick to take state officials to task when they get something wrong. WC thinks it is equally important to offer praise and congratulations when they get it right.
Director of Elections Gail Fenumiai had to make thousands of difficult, high pressure decisions under tight time constraints, the national media spotlight and the badgering of hordes of lawyers, including her own. WC notes she appears to have made each and every one of those decisions correctly. As much as telling Miller his claims are wrong, the Alaska Supreme Court has affirmed all – every one – of Director Fenumiai’s decisions. Congratulations to her on a job well done. WC is deeply grateful to her.
Which leaves WC with Joe Miller and the ruins of his campaign. Under Judge Beistline’s order, Miller has 48 hours to resume his case in federal court. He doesn’t have a prayer. While WC has the lowest possible expectations for Miller and his advisors, surely now even Joe Miller can see that it is over. He has lost. It’s time to do the right thing, to concede, and allow the election to be certified.
Wickersham's Conscience 
Pingback: Tweets that mention Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One: Miller Loses – Again « Wickersham's Conscience -- Topsy.com
I’m glad you pointed out how Director of Elections, Gail Fenumiai is to be complimented on her correct decision making and correct course of actions.
It’s been my experience and observation, despite the {seemingly mostly Republican according to various reported state court filings} hysteria of voter fraud accusations, that most election officials really do try to ‘get it right’.
Unfortunately, deeply desperate parties such as Joe Miller will always lash out at easy targets rather than look in the mirror when it comes to analyzing why failure has occurred.
The manner in which Joe Miller has pursued this litigation just goes to show how really incompetent Joe is for any position in Government. There is no excuse _ever_ for cutting people off from their right to vote. This is especially true for people whom have taken the time and effort to show up and participate.
Joe Miller’s arguments of precise exactitude being more important than people’s actual cast ballots are specious. His arguments merely serve to reinforce the all too common perception that most lawyers are in it for the money and to win regardless of any sense of justice {present company excluded}.
This set of lawsuits, the manner in which the lawsuits were executed, Joe’s purchase of hunting permits at a price reserved for the truly poor, Joe’s hypocrisy such as taking on the one hand from the same programs he would deny on the other really do speak to Joe’s unsuitability as an ‘officer of the court’.
The term ‘slimeball’ doesn’t begin to cover it.
I didn’t intend this to turn out to be a rant about Joe Miller’s personality flaws and I’m actually sorry it has done so. But his kind of money grubbing hypocrisy really, really gets my goat.
P.S. And Senator DeMint’s equally despicable support for Joe Miller didn’t help matters either. There is something truly reprehensible when outsiders try to dictate / buy / influence local election results. Such courses of action are, in my not so humble opinion, morally bankrupt.
It’s funny how not attempting to buy local elections with outsider money at any cost isn’t considered a “Repbublican ‘Family Value'”
LikeLike
Stop you, WC? Who can hear those three magic words, “Joe Miller loses,” too many times? 🙂
I wonder whether Mr. Van Flein will withdraw from the case, citing his impending move to Washington, and avoid having to choose between saying “no” to Joe Miller and pursuing a suit that at this point Judge Beistline might deem frivolous and sanctionable.
I second what Notellin said, except I would hold back from calling outsider funding “morally bankrupt.” It’s going to happen, and the First Amendment makes it impossible to prevent. I was one of many outsiders who sent money to Scott McAdams — to be sure, only after much more outside money had gone to Joe Miller, but still “immoral” if it is immoral to attempt to influence other people’s choice of representative.
It is a problem that nation-wide interest groups can focus on a few state races and give their candidates an overwhelming financial advantage. Party organizations could do this in the past, but political parties had responsibility for governing to the extent they were successful. Gay-rights or anti-gay or pro-choice or pro-life organizations and PAC’s can’t and won’t. Not only are they unable and unwilling to take responsibility for government as a whole, they have a clear incentive to polarize voters around their particular issues, shout down compromise, and consequently prevent the government from functioning. But while “bankruptcy” suggests an utter failure from which we can only walk away, there is no possibility of a fresh start for American democracy short of a constitutional convention, and Lord knows what we would end up with. Morally ambiguous it is, but it’s the only game in town.
LikeLike
The judges who have rendered decisions a la Joe Miller have distinguished themselves as excellent, IMO, and deserve our thanks.
Good thing, too, because if only the performance of Miller served to represent the ethics, abilities, and intelligence of the legal profession over this period of time, I would be for abolishing it and starting from scratch.
LikeLike