RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Murkowski camp cries foul at ballot count
Lisa Murkowski’s campaign on Thursday accused observers for rival Joe Miller of making petty challenges in the counting of voters’ write-in ballots in an attempt to tilt the U.S. Senate race in Alaska in their favor.
Miller’s campaign disputed the charge, saying observers are simply challenging votes that don’t meet the strict letter of the law—including those with minor misspellings of Murkowski’s name or those with legibility or penmanship issues.
Miller has filed a federal lawsuit, seeking to bar the state from counting ballots that do not meet the standards set out in law. Briefings on the issue are set for next week.
The law calls for write-in ballots to have the oval filled in and either the candidate’s last name or the name as it appears on their declaration of candidacy scrawled in—in this case, either “Murkowski” or “Lisa Murkowski.”
But the state is using discretion to discern voter intent, pointing to prior case law as their basis in doing so. State Division of Elections director Gail Fenumiai, the final arbiter of what’s in or out during the counting process, said if the name is phonetic to Murkowski or there are minor misspellings, she’s counting it for Murkowski. It’s an effort aimed at not disenfranchising any voters.
The tabulation of about 19,200 initial write-ins showed Murkowski winning 89 percent of the votes undisputedly. Nearly 10 percent was challenged, though Fenumiai counted the majority of those to Murkowski’s tally.
That percentage is key: If a judge agrees that they don’t meet the legal standard of votes for Murkowski and tosses them aside, Miller’s camp says it would make the race very tight, possibly forcing a recount or, at the very least, putting Miller in tight contention.
More than 92,900 write-in ballots were cast in the race, with thousands of absentee and questioned ballots still coming in or yet to be addressed. Write-ins led Miller by a margin of 10,799 as of Wednesday night.
The election review board is currently scheduled to certify the race results Nov. 29—after which a recount can be requested or the results can be contested in court.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
back to top55 Comments to “Murkowski camp cries foul at ballot count”
Pot, kettle black.
She fights him when she loses the primary and now she’s offended because he wants the election to be fair? What did she expect? Outrageous.
Hope he wins.
Report comment to moderator
What does that mean, “write ins led Miller”?
Is he still ahead with the write ins?
Report comment to moderator
Miller needs to man up and step aside. This worn actually said that the misspelled Murkowski votes where protest votes for him. What a load of bull. His only way to become Senator is to disenfranchise Alaska voters. He will never be a legitimate.
As much as I despise this ignoramus militia sympathizer. I hope he wins, because let’s face it, unless Murkowski defects to the Dems, they’ll pretty much vote the same anyway. The difference is that Democrats could run against the extremist laughingstock of the Senate in 2012.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, is it fair to toss out a vote that was clearly intended for her but has her name spelled wrong (let’s say it has a c ibnstead of a k)? I’m not sure it is.
Report comment to moderator
I’m quite sure it’s not.
The voter’s intent, if it is clearly discernible, should be honored in elections. It troubles me (but doesn’t surprise me) that partisans are so willing to throw aside the democratic principles they pretend to champion and make any argument so their candidate wins.
If the candidates were Bob Smith (Establishment Republican) and Nikolai Frederiksen (Tea Party), you would not want write-in votes for “Nicholi Fredrickson” thrown out.
Report comment to moderator
Democrats don’t lose close rases.
They said, after GWB, “Never again.”
Report comment to moderator
Whatever the state decides to do as far as counting ballots, must be done for every election, not changed for different candidates. That is a problem for me. Murkowski had a lot of ads running and even hand-outs with her name spelled correctly, because she knew the law. It was enforced eight years ago, I believe. This time, we change the standards? I don’t have a dog in that fight, but I think consistancy is important.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know what their statute says, but the court will decide. I agree that whatever the precedent is should prevail this time, too.
And considering Al Franken didn’t really win the election, maybe he should step aside, too, KWatson.
Report comment to moderator
I also think if someone wrote in Miller’s name it should be counted, but that’s not the law, as I understand it. There has to be a bright line. You can’t keep changing the rules as much as leftys like that to be so in order for them to prevail.
Report comment to moderator
KI, that assumes you take the handout into the booth with you, or you are a naturally good speller. Should “John Smith” have that kind of advantage over “Eleonore Kremptofski”? No, don’t pretend you can discern intent because the person wrote “Ed Kraft” and the initials are E.K., but use common sense. If the person writes “Gorge” he means “George”! My name is most often misspelled; people write it “Sheryl,” the way it sounds–if I were a write-in candidate, should that misspelling lose me the vote?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, if the law says it must be exact.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, whatever is decided needs to be the same for every candidate for every election. Do you think Murkowski spent all that money running ad to give the correct spelling just for the fun of it? That is my point. Keep it the same for every election, every candidate, everytime. Otherwise, the public has a right to suspect foul play and they are correct.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, I haven’t read the law, but if the law says it must be exact, for sure make sure the voters know that before they go to vote. And especially in a race that is likely to hinge on write-in votes, then make sure voters have access to the names of the write-in candidates. Since they only have to push a button or check a box for “standard” candidates, it hardly seems fair not to offer spelling help to a voter who gets into the booth and realizes he left his sample ballot, with the spelling of his candidate’s name, at home. I really don’t think it’s fair to offer that sort of disadvantage to a candidate whose name is hard to spell–that is irrelevant to the race.
(I’m not making any comments on the race itself–I know this was a controversial one, but I haven’t followed it to know who is “good” or “bad.” I personally am in favor of making voting harder than it is, but making it significantly harder to vote for one specific candidate in a specific race doesn’t seem fair.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, every single voter had the right before hand to write down any name they wanted to take into the booth with them. I sometimes write down names of judges, since I am often not really up on them and there are so many. Sometimes some of the names are even similar. I take the time to do it before hand.
The law was clear and it was known or, as I said, no one would have wasted money on the court battles and ads before the vote.
When I use to attend political conventions, there were several committees that people would fight to get on. One was the rules committee. There is a reason for that. Rules can be changed to favor certain issues or people. Politicians do that.
The law must be clear before the election and the standard has to be held. Between elections it could be changed. But the new standard then has to be made known before the election.
Report comment to moderator
KI, I just know from experience that I usually end up without my sample ballot on election day–and as a person who doesn’t watch TV, I don’t see campaign ads. (I do get mailings, of course.) So I can see the possibility of not remembering the spelling. As long as the necessity of exact spelling had been wildely publicized, I suppose that is fair.
But it seems to me the whole idea of a write-in vote is saying, “I don’t like any of these overly politicized candidates; here is who I think should get the job.” Making it impossible for write-in candidates to be a grass-roots “rebellion” by making such rules as “he has to be registered as a write-in candidate, and you have to spell his name exactly right” simply seems contrary to the whole idea of the write-in vote. It also seems like stacking the deck too hard against the legitimate write-in candidate. If it is considerably easier to vote for the ones whose names are on the ballot, by legislative intent, that seems like bias.
Report comment to moderator
I do think it was cheap for Murkowski to run on her maiden name in order to confuse the voters and have them think they were voting for her dad. Even her husband joked that he doesnt know how to spell his wife’s name!!
Report comment to moderator
I actually have to go with Murkowski on this, as much as that pains me. Voter intent is important, and there is precedent for considering it. A simple misspelling should not void the voters intent. Someone who voted for Murcowski is clearly a vote for her, and should be counted as such.
But on the same note, a write-in for Miller should be counted for Miller, even though he’s not technically on the write-in list. He is still in the race, and the voters intent is clear.
Both sides are nit-picking because the stakes are so high. Either way, the numbers aren’t on Miller’s side. I think she still wins.
Report comment to moderator
See, this is why the internet totally rocks!
Here’s some photos of the “questionable” ballots. The intent seems pretty obvious. It’s got some updates on how the counting is progressing, and it doesn’t look good for Miller.
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/154279
“We just received the first results of today’s count and the trend is similar to what we saw yesterday, with Lisa Murkowski receiving nearly 98 percent of the write in ballots cast.
The Alaska Division of Elections has now reviewed the writes-in for 32 percent of the precincts. More than 89 percent of the 30,023 write-in votes cast are unchallenged for Murkowski.
Another 8.4 percent of the writes-in were challenged by Miller campaign observers but counted for Murkowski by Elections Director Gail Fenumiai.Those include examples of ballots that appear to be filled out correctly but were still challenged (see below). The Miller campaign challenges of those votes still stand, with Miller hoping the courts will rule on them.
They are being segregated in boxes with the status “counted but challenged.”
Just 1.5 percent of the write-in ballots have been successfully challenged by the Miller ballot observers, with Fenumiai agreeing with Miller that they should not be counted.”
Report comment to moderator
Miller is a joke. And his legal challenges have a better chance of getting Alaska’s election law tossed out than Mercowskee’z ballots!
Report comment to moderator
Come on, guys. A standard must be set and applied. The only way that write-in votes can even be permitted is to know–before the fact–just how they will be counted.
If the law says that a write-in vote counts if an election official can determine the intent of the voter, then that is what should apply. If the law says that it counts only if it is spelled exactly correctly, then that is what should apply.
We are a nation of laws, not of people’s whims.
I thought that we had leared our lesson with hanging chads and prengant chads. You shouldn’t change the rules once the counting has begun.
If you think that the law is too strict, then work to change it.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, if I knew about it, I’d bet the voters up there did, too.
You really need a bright line — a standard — to be fair.
Report comment to moderator
I find it very odd that she didn’t win the primary, but now she has this overwhelming write-in support. I’d want this investigated, too. Franken was investigated, but sworn in before the results, and he actually lost. So, there’s nothing wrong in being sure.
Report comment to moderator
The internet may rock, but it’s not evidence. Those pictures are not the only examples of write-ins. Miller has a right to challenge this, and I am glad he is doing so.
Report comment to moderator
The Wall Street Journal has been covering this, and the law does not specify voter intent.
From John Fund’s November 10 column: Alaska law says a write-in vote is only counted if “the name of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.”
That doesn’t leave much wiggle room for “voter intent”, but it doesn’t specifically say the name has to be spelled correctly, either. Miller’s lawsuit, as referenced in the World artlcle, is based on the Alaska Division of Elections decision to allow minor misspellings.
As a stickler for spelling and punctuation, I believe that if you can’t spell a candidate’s name correctly, it shouldn’t count.
In response to NJLawyer’s post #22, I think much of Murkowski’s support has come from Democrats and independents; the current vote totals are Murkowski-41%, Miller-34% and McAdams (D)-24%. McAdams has already conceded.
Report comment to moderator
Thanx for an inteligent discusion on this topi. My opinion switched sides a half-cozen times reading thru the aove.
(Excuse spelling errors).
Still can’t decide.
Report comment to moderator
There’s alot of questions still to be answered, and the courts will decide if necessary. Now as to voter intent……
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/10/report-98-of-write-in-ballots-counted-thus-far-are-for-murkowski/
“But wait, what about the “voter intent” standard that’s virtually universally applied by courts in cases involving disputed ballots? Funny thing — that’s never been tested in a write-in case in Alaska:
On Friday, Ms. Fenumiai pointed to two previous Alaska cases in which ballots were counted for a candidate when voter intent was clear, even if the ballot wasn’t filled out correctly. Those cases didn’t involve write-in ballots, however…”
“Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School, said states typically interpret election rules so they maximize the chances voter intent is considered. Alaska, in particular, “has generally taken the view that statutes should be liberally construed,” he said.
It’s hard to “liberally construe” a statute that says “no exceptions.” I think you’ll see one of two things happen here if this race really does come down to a stack of ballots marked “Markowski” or “Murkowsky” or whatever. One: The state supreme court could decide that the statute is unconstitutional because the right to vote implies some sort of “voter intent” standard. That’d be an awfully sketchy ruling given that the state constitution says voting standards shall be prescribed by law, but we’ve seen stranger interpretations before and, after all, courts don’t like to see people disenfranchised when everyone knows who they meant to vote for.”
Report comment to moderator
Yes Kyle, we are a nation of laws among them–the Voting Rights Act! Not counting votes where the intent is clear but the spelling is off creates a back door literacy test, and that can’t stand up in the face of federal law.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, maybe, but it is up to a court to decide if the law in question violates those other laws. The people on the ground do not have the authority to invalidate a law just because they don’t like it.
The problem with voter intent is that a person might actually have meant somebody with a different name. What if I wrote my neighbor’s name, and it happened to be Markovski (such a name exists)? My write-in vote could be interpreted as a vote for Murkowski, even though I did not intend it to be.
What if you had two popular people who were being written on the ballots, and one happened to be named Schmidt while the other happened to be Schmitt. How would you ever determine voter intent with certainty?
I realize that what I am describing probably does not apply in this case, but laws have to cover all cases.
Hey, for that matter, I might get the two candidates mixed up and write Miller when I really meant to write Murkowski. How would a voter-intent law make up for my mistake?
Oh, and I don’t see what this has to do with literacy. An illiterate person, or any person, can ask for assistace at the polling place. I have been an election judge, and I have helped people who requested it. If somebody asked how to spell a candidate’s name, I would do so in a situation like this. Even an illiterate person can have sombody write down a name so that they can copy it correctly.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock is a lefty who yet again wants the rules to be changed to go his way. That’s unfair on its face. The problem in this country is all that whiny stuff.
Report comment to moderator
But as an election official on site could you actually spell a candidate’s name, Kyle?
As I read this, I thought she could just have little slips with the correct spelling of her name standing by. But wouldn’t that be a violation of the law?
This is a puzzle and I really don’t know the answer. Except, it does feel a little bit like a vindication to all us English majors who spend our lives helping people spell correctly. See? It does count!
Report comment to moderator
The surest way is to have a bright line rule — spell it correctly or it doesn’t count. If you want it to count, you’ll go to the trouble to spell it correctly. That’s the answer.
Report comment to moderator
Make a decision.
Report comment to moderator
There is a pattern here. When the Left plays dirty to win, it’s okay. When the Right plays dirty, it’s not okay.
Here’s what I think: voter intent should triumph, however, if Miller’s lawsuit is needed for him to prevail, I hope he wins.
Judge me how you will.
Report comment to moderator
Again, NJL leaves us all wondering how she ever made it out of the first year of law school.
Nowhere does Alaska’s statute require accurate spelling. So, the vote-counters are under no obligation to reject ballots for minor misspellings. Besides, if ballots are cast out for minor misspellings, such an action would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge.
It’s interesting how Tea Party partisans speak highly of the will of the people until it becomes apparent that the people’s will doesn’t benefit them.
Of course, I tend to think that the Tea Party is largely a sham. It’s nothing more than the recrudescence of the Religious Right, which is a recrudescence of the KKK. David Duke = Rand Paul.
Report comment to moderator
At least I went, RSD.
From the Volokh: “Alaska has a statute that requires voters to write “the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate,” … “The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.”
So, you’re calling them liars, too. So before you make broad statements about what would or would not survive a constitutional challenge…. just sayin’.
And anyone who would equate Rand Paul with David Duke is the real sham artist.
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
NJL is correct. Both the links I posted refer to correct spelling, no exceptions. Perhaps you could show us where you think it says that correct spelling isn’t required.
If the rules as written are followed, Miller has a case technically. But that’s where the question of voter intent comes into play. Personally I think it should be considered, but I can see the argument that the law be followed as written. Any thing else, such as clarifying it now that it’s an issue, would be, I’ll probably screw this up, post defacto or something. Maybe NJL will clarify that if she knows what I mean. Anyway, you can’t change it now and apply it to a prior incident like this one.
But all this may be moot anyway, because even with the challenged stuff, Miller isn’t that close.
Report comment to moderator
The reason you need a bright line is so a decision can easily be made one way or the other. The statute is written so that there’s no doubt about the intent of the statute itself — that you be accurate in the spelling or the vote is invalid. What RSD wants to do is change the intent of the statute because he can’t handle the riff raff (that would be The People) actually having a say in their government because he doesn’t think they have the brains to rule themselves. If the Alaskan legislature wanted to put discretion in the hands of those who count votes, they would have put that in the statute. They didn’t. It’s not a “technicality” that they didn’t. There’s nothing to be clarified. The statute establishes a clear rule — either you spell it right or you don’t, and if you don’t, it’s out. It takes guts to say yes or no. Elitists have trouble with that.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, the will of the people is expressed in laws. If people do not like a law, then they must change it democratically. If an election official has to make a judgement call on a ballot, then there is no guarantee that that official will decide according to the will of the people.
Report comment to moderator
I have always heard that the spelling had to be exact for write-ins. I thought informed voters knew that.
One question, did she just use her maiden name for the ballot or did she legally keep or change her last name to her maiden name? The way the law reads if she didn’t really change her last name shouldn’t the last name only be her real name?
Report comment to moderator
“Mynock, maybe, but it is up to a court to decide if the law in question violates those other laws. The people on the ground do not have the authority to invalidate a law just because they don’t like it.”
Kyle, they aren’t invalidating the law. It says they have to write her name. Does the law say it has to be spelled correctly? There isn’t a good reason to hold the letter of the law to mean that, especially in light of the Voting Rights Act.
A government has to (by necessity) give a great deal of latitude to agencies actually in charged with implementing statute. Now, I agree with you that a judge is the person to decide this. But that doesn’t mean that Miller’s behavior isn’t disenfranchising and anti-democratic on face. And we can call that bad! That’s allowed!
Now, if they implemented it the way Miller wanted, it would just be Murkowski (sp?) going to the court, and I think she would win. And in light of all that–I think it’s better for the government to act democratically without court supervision until the court steps in to say they can’t. And it’s pretty clear which position is more democratic.
P.S. Y’all are acting like Murkowski is a fake Republican? What bill did she join the Democrats on? Health care? No. Wallstreet reform? No. Credit card reform? Not that I know of.
Joe Miller lied through his whole campaign. He’s completely unqualified for public office. And he gives off seriously creepy vibes. We should all be glad Murkowski is going to win this. It would not speak well of the whole country, to make that dude a Senator! Rand “What opposition to ear marks? I don’t remember that!” Paul, is bad enough!
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, seriously. It sounds like you really mean I want it to go my way.
I still firmly insist that the only democratic way to count the votes is to count them according to existing law. For the election officials to decide is giving them way too much power. It also means that the losing candidate will always insist that the other person “stole” the election, as in the Bush-Gore debacle.
Report comment to moderator
I agree Kyle. If the majority don’t like the way the law says to count the votes they can change the law. But don’t just change the votes.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle: Thanx for an inteligent discusion on this topi. My opinion switched sides a half-cozen times reading thru the aove.
(Excuse spelling errors).
Sorry, we can’t do that. NJLawyer and Ki have established that if you misspell any words, your post cannot be counted, even if the word you intended is clear.
Report comment to moderator
RSD: It’s interesting how Tea Party partisans speak highly of the will of the people until it becomes apparent that the people’s will doesn’t benefit them.
Exactly!
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Perhaps when you’re done using blanket statements about how “Tea Party partisans speak highly of the will of the people until it becomes apparent that the people’s will doesn’t benefit them.”, you’ll take the time to read my posts. Especially since I have pretty much advocated that voter intent should be the deciding factor. I differ with most of the folks here on that. I’m actually more in your camp than theirs. And yes, I’m definetly a “tea party partisan” as you put it. Your statement is shot full of holes before you even made it. Stop with the blanket condemnations. It makes you look like you didn’t even read the opinions here before condemning them.
Report comment to moderator
Just to clarify, RSD made the statement, but you obviously agree. So I’ll include RSD in #45 as well.
Report comment to moderator
The statement is obviously a generalization that’s not going to be true of everyone in every case. But it happens often enough that it’s not really wrong, even if it’s not always universally true.
The reason for saying it is to point out hypocrisy as it is happening. When people in a referendum vote to keep gay marriage illegal and a judge overturns it, people complain that the judge doesn’t respect “the will of the people.” Now there’s a case where the clear will of the voters may matter less than strict adherence to the letter of the law, and some of those same people have chosen to side against the will of the people. This shows that their real priority is getting the outcomes they want, not enforcing the will of the people.
However, you’re right to point out that your own position is different, and I neglected to acknowledge that.
Report comment to moderator
“The statement is obviously a generalization that’s not going to be true of everyone in every case. But it happens often enough that it’s not really wrong, even if it’s not always universally true.”
Somehow I don’t think you’d allow me the same leeway if I used that phrase above to justify a statement like “all terrorists are muslim”. It’s a generalization, not always true, but enough terrorists are muslim, so that statement isn’t really wrong, even if not universally true. You wouldn’t agree that it was OK to do it.
This is why generalizations don’t work. It’s also why situational ethics don’t work either. You can’t say it’s ok to generalize with Tea Partiers, but not muslims. It’s either OK for both, or for neither. Can’t have it both ways.
Report comment to moderator
Miller should go the way of Pat Toomey here. Get behind the winner, and live to fight another day.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-12/joe-millers-struggle-alaskan-election-results-is-he-hurting-himself/
“The Republican candidate for Senate in Alaska still has a bright future if he doesn’t destroy it by fighting Lisa Murkowski over every write-in ballot. Shushannah Walshe on how he’s hurting his reputation for a likely lost cause.”
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
The will of the people is reflected in the laws that their representatives make (Generally, this white house and congress obviously didn’t care what the will of the people was.) But our system was made to designed to move a little slower than the whim of the people at a specific time. Therefore we have a rule of law and if enough of the people decide that the laws are wrong, over time they will elect people that change the laws.
Report comment to moderator
It seems that the tenor of this thread has been that the ballots should be counted whether the names are spelled correctly or not. RSD’s generalization certainly doesn’t make sense in light of that fact.
It does seem, as AJ said, that some people come on here with their assumptions intact, and comment on what they think we believe rather than on what people actually write in the comment boxes.
As for Tea Party people, I would guess that most of them would think that write-in votes should generally be counted in good faith–that if a vote looks even remotely like a certain person’s name, it should count. I would also guess that most of them want this race to come out the way that they hope. That’s human nature. It doesn’t matter if you are a member of the Tea Party or a member of the Socialist Party, you want your guy (or gal) to win.
Report comment to moderator
#50 is the wisest post on this thread so far, in my opinion. Especially this part:
As for Tea Party people, I would guess that most of them would think that write-in votes should generally be counted in good faith–that if a vote looks even remotely like a certain person’s name, it should count. I would also guess that most of them want this race to come out the way that they hope. That’s human nature. It doesn’t matter if you are a member of the Tea Party or a member of the Socialist Party, you want your guy (or gal) to win.
Report comment to moderator
“Mynock, seriously. It sounds like you really mean, ‘I want it to go my way.’”
That’s a reading comprehension error on your part. bud. “My way” would be McAdams winning, but unfortunately he did not win. In the absence of getting it “my way” I would prefer having the votes counted the way they were obviously intended…which seems likely to happen.
And since Miller is a liar (objectively) and a nutcase (in my opinion), I’m very grateful that it seems for now like most of the votes were intended for Mercowskee (whose name I will continue to mangle in solidarity with the voters Miller is trying to disenfranchise).
This doesn’t really help me very much. Like I said, what issues are you expecting Mercowskee to vote with the Democrats on? Sorry, but you’re all a bunch of chumps if you fell for Miller and the Tea Party’s “Mercowskee is a liberal” lie.
And I do agree with you in @50, a populist movement is supposed to want clear votes counted. But the mistake you make is in thinking that the Tea Party is about populism.
The Tea Party isn’t a populist movement. It’s astroturf paid for by the Koch brothers and a scheme for Dick Armey’s consulting business. Don’t expect the Tea Party to behave in populist ways. Expect them to behave in the interest of oil companies and Wall Street traders.
Report comment to moderator
And let me be clear…I don’t think the elections officials are violating the letter of the law.
Report comment to moderator
AJ & NJL:
The statute nowhere requires absolute accuracy in spelling. You’re both reading limitations into the text of the statute that simply are absent.
Also, it would be a violation of federal law and of the Constitution to disqualify ballots merely because of minor inaccuracies in spelling, as this would have the effect of disenfranchising those with certain learning disabilities, etc.
And yes, NJL, I went to law school. I even graduated with honors and practiced at a top law firm.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!