There is an interesting controversy in Alaska where an election official just disqualified a candidate over his name. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) is in what is considered a close race with Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola. The seat is viewed as critical to the Democrats’ retaking power. The race was thrown into disarray when a retired teacher named Dan Sullivan, who had no connection to the GOP but did have connections to Democratic operatives, got on the ballot. The alleged dirty trick by Democratic and Peltola supporters would have split Sullivan’s vote through sheer confusion. Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualified Dan J. Sullivan, putting an end to it this week.
The suspected dirty trick comes at a time when Democratic candidates and pundits are calling for winning back power “by any means necessary.”
It could create an interesting appeal if teacher Sullivan claims that this is just a colossal coincidence or that he has a right to be a vehicle for electoral confusion.
This is an old trick employed by other Democratic candidates in history, including J.F. Kennedy. In Kennedy’s first run for Congress in 1946 in Boston, he was up against Boston City Councilor Joe Russo in the primary. The district was heavily Irish and Italian. Kennedy’s father, Joe, allegedly paid another Joseph Russo, a custodian, to run to divide the Italian vote through confusion.
In 2000, Republicans faced similar allegations when the House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt found himself running against Richard A. Gebhardt.
Beecher concluded that Dan J. Sullivan and the Democrats were engaged in the same dirty trick to try to seize the seat. In a letter this week, she concluded that the teacher’s candidacy was “filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality,” in a letter published Monday.
Under Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system, Dan J. Sullivan could have advanced to the general election among the top four vote-getters — rigging the result for Peltola.
Beecher noted several indicators that teacher Sullivan and the Democrats were engaged in a dishonest campaign of confusion. She noted that he voted under the name Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., but requested to appear on the ballot as Dan Sullivan—making him identical to the incumbent. He even tried to register using the initial “S” once, which would have matched the senator.
She also noted that Dan J. Sullivan had not registered as a Republican before launching his Senate campaign and that he created a new website that used a “color scheme and overall theme” similar to the incumbent’s campaign materials.
She also noted his connection to Amber Lee, an Alaska Democratic consultant and past supporter of Peltola.
If true, it is a disgraceful role played by this retired teacher and Democratic operatives. While claiming to be defending democracy, Democratic activists and leaders often use the most anti-democratic measures of ballot cleansing or, in this case, ballot confusion.
The question is the role of Peltola, the DNC, and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee in encouraging this dirty trick in Alaska. That would require an inquisitive, independent national media.
Once again, from Alaska to Maine, Democrats may have to ask, “Are we the baddies?‘
We all knew that when Democrats accused others of supporting Nazis that they were employing projection. Now comes the revelation that the SPLC are not just Jew haters but also lovers of Nazis.
“SPLC boss funneled $1.2 million to lover in neo-Nazi group — pair even had joint bank account”
A top Southern Poverty Law Center official is accused of helping funnel $1.2 million in donor money to an informant in the National Alliance white supremacist group — who was also allegedly her lover.
The Department of Justice filed a superseding indictment against the SPLC accusing it of funneling donor cash to hate groups they were then telling donors they were fighting.
https://nypost.com/2026/06/16/us-news/splc-employee-who-paid-neo-nazi-lover-1-2-million-unmasked/
Beecher’s authority to disqualify a candidate are purely black and white issues. Only three things allow her to disqualify a candidate.
Failing to meet constitutional age or residency requirements.
Submitting a check that bounces for the mandatory filing fee.
Failing to submit the required declaration of candidacy forms before the hard statutory deadline.
That’s it.
Carol Beecher has the final administrative say on who is placed on the ballot, meaning she has the administrative authority to issue a disqualification letter. However, because her authority to evaluate a candidate’s “good faith” is derived from an aggressive interpretation of a vague statutory phrase (“properly filed”) rather than explicit legislative permission, her ruling is highly legally vulnerable. Under state law, the ultimate arbiter of whether she exceeded her power will be the Alaska Superior Court, which handles rapid judicial reviews of her ballot decisions.
She’s not a mind reader and cannot use that as reason to disqualify someone because she assumed an intent.
Still pushing that one, even after OLLY pointed out in Alaska state law Beecher has the authority?
That is okay. As we pointed out, the Lt. Governor is launching an investigation. Perhaps in that investigation they can uncover attempted fraud.
Olly keeps misinterpreting the law.
Beecher does not have the authority to disqualify a candidate based on what she thinks are their fraudulent intentions. The only authority to disqualify allowed by the law is if the a candidate fails to those three specific criteria.
None are about candidate’s intentions or allegations of fraud.
Yes, only law enforcement can investigate allegations of fraud. Beecher already determined that there was ‘evidence’ of intent to confuse voters, but she does not have the authority to make that determination. Because she disqualified Dan J. Sullivan on the assumption that his intention was to confuse voters. That’s not her job. She already went beyond what the law allows her to do. That’s the problem.
It the Lt. governor is launching an investigation, that is fine. But the disqualification should be voided until a real investigation is conducted. Not before.
^^^^^(fromX, hiding behind “anonymous” because he is afraid he will get shot down with his fifth-grade opinions.) Notice that X always disappears during these “anony” comments.
What kind of Lt. Governor launches investigations? That’s even stranger than the original issue. I thought a Lt. Governor in most states breaks ties in the senate and waits for the Governor to leave the state or die and the Atty. Gen. or legislature launches investigations.
Wrong.
In Alaska you must file candidacy paperwork stating your full name and the name you want on the ballot; using a fictitious name to conceal your identity can prevent ballot placement and may expose you to legal challenges or penalties for false statements.
What fictious name was used? His real name is Dan Sullivan. He is not concealing anything.
Interesting to note that most Alaskan’s are registered Independents/Other (371,645 ~ 64.7%).
But in Presidential races, they have consistently voted Republican.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_voting_trends_in_Alaska
Voter Registration by Party
How many registered Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are in Alaska?
Party Registered Voters % of Total
Democratic 68,189 11.9%
Republican 134,476 23.4%
Independent/Other 371,645 64.7%
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-stats/ak
A.I.:
U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R) serves as the junior United States Senator for Alaska. First taking office in January 2015, he represents the entire state of Alaska at-large and is next up for re-election in late 2026.
Key Details & Background
He serves on the Armed Services, Commerce, Science and Transportation, Environment and Public Works, and Veterans’ Affairs Committees.
Background: Prior to the Senate, he served as Alaska’s Attorney General and Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, in addition to his career as an infantry officer in the U.S. Marine Corps.
2026 Election: The incumbent Senator is involved in a highly unusual re-election bid, as state election officials previously disqualified another candidate—a retired teacher also named Dan Sullivan—from the primary ballot to avoid voter confusion.
Dan Sullivan is Alaska’s eighth U.S. Senator. He was sworn in on January 6, 2015 and reelected in November 2020.
The judicial branch finally demonstrated some minimal capacity to grasp a simple concept and did something correctly.
Dan J. Sullivan should be in jail for:
– Filing “Not in Good Faith”
– Intentional Voter Misdirection
– Potential Perjury / False Swearing:
________________________________________
When will the Supreme Court fully assimilate these few words:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The judicial branch demonstrated nothing, but might be called upon in future.
In light of the recently exposed plot to target the White House UFC festival with drone bombs and snipers, I think this little dirty trick is just a small item of concern. After noting the plot to create havoc at the White House by terrorist tactics; is there any doubt remaining that the prog/left/democrats are, once more, initiating a civil war? Just imagine the chicanery involved in the past 2+ decades of elections in democrat controlled districts, this is a long-term plan to disrupt our government to the point of replacing it. When will the American public realize that this democrat party/organization is a domestic terrorist organization that will stoop to murder to achieve their goals? The most important thing at this point is to ferret out the sources of funding and organization of all this pernicious activity aimed at the eventual disruption of our system of laws and governance?
“Proper’s family also became concerned with statements he had made in recent months, including “sympathetic comments about Adolf Hitler” and antisemitic content posted on his social media, according to the affidavit. ”
Didn’t Trump welcome the Nazis to vote for him?
No.
That is just another far leftist lie.
No Trump did not.
The Democrats and Platner are after the Nazi vote. (Every Democrat except Fetterman backed Platner).They even have the paraphernalia tattooed on his chest. Just because he covered it up when exposed doesn’t mean it’s not their. Abrading and laser is what removed taattoo.
So the Democrats are the party of the Nazis, which by the way is also a Democratic socialist party.
Still attempting to peddle your prog-inspired nonsense. I think most of this crowd is on to your nuisance posts. I do hope they pay you well to cause this annoyance day in and day out.
I get paid my your mom and its costly
Democrats are like mold, they ruin everything.
yea like antibiotics and cheese. stupid mold
Someone said of Woodrow Wilson that he was a man of high ideals but low scruples. Things have not changed except that the Democrats have lost their ideals.
Someone said trump was a pedo. And then the Epstein files and witnesses confirmed it
Riiiiiiiiiiiight, and Biden just “forgot” to nail Trump with all that “evidence” while he could have. Pfffft. Moron.
Let’s see, why is Turley interested in this obscure corner of our political ecosystem? Could it be it has something to do with Israel….oh, yes, it’s because Sullivan is an AIPAC cuck and Peltola has NOT been bribed by Israel! Seems to be a recurring theme on this blog masquerading sometimes as women’s lib (See, Turley’s attack of Planter), sometimes as defense of (See, above), and of course “rage about free speech.” Yeah….nah….name a single instance when Turley has defended free speech in the face of Zionist onslaught. The fact that IDF donor and rabid Zionist Ellison bought TikTok, CBS, CNN, etc. to spread Zionist propaganda and cover up Israel’s war crimes and land-thieving does not offend the good professor. Of course, installing an Israeli activist, Bari Weiss, as propagandist-in-chief at CBS / CNN has NO EFFECT on public discourse in the United States, right Prof? Afterall, it’s a free market! The Zionists are free to purchase all of our media outlets and public spaces and pay bloggers to propagandize to their heart’s content, right Professor?
Shut up, antisemite. There is no room for antisemites in decent society, or in politics. You have the constitutional right to exist, just like the remnants of the KKK, but like them you are irredeemable scum.
Hey Milhouse – You seem pretty angry. You might want to think about not using Jews as “human shields” for your disgusting propaganda and unhinged blather. You’re making the tribe look seriously bad. By your standard, “everyone” is an “antisemite.”
Hey Jew hater, who does CAIR support? How come you are only interested in a Jewish lobby and not any other group?
Go polish your Nazi tattoo you bigot.
Oh, I remember this from previous attacks: you’re not allowed to criticise Israel in isolation. You have to drag in all other entities or get called names. Nevermind that solving problems requires their decomposition. No, drag in all of it to muddy the waters and make discussion impossible.
Well, guess what? I don’t know, what? Israel is losing the American public in spite of a USD700M propaganda budget(far more if you count media acquisitions). The money and effort being dumped into propaganda(and Congressman Massie’s primary) simply shows that tne narrative is lies. No amount of money will fix it, the narrative is failing along with the attacks and name calling.
America First
Isn’t that viewpoint intolerance? I thought JT was vehemently opposed to that.
^^^this is X
It’s not a matter of criticizinig Israel in isolation, it’s the tendency to portray Israel and Jews as controlling everything, which is ridiculous, but it’s an antisemitic trope used by haters, and they actually seem to believe it – which only reflects their own mental and spiritual illness.
Are you actually endorsing the mentally-deranged delusional ramblings of the anonymous commenter?
The anon is a bit incoherent but senses a problem. Maybe over time it will speak more coherently.
I think big money lobbying in general is a problem. ADL/AIPAC is no exception.
Simply dismissing criticism as hatred is just as stupid as blind hatred.
I pretty much passively accepted the Israel narrative for many decades. I no longer consider the narrative to be sound or trustworthy. We’re being asymmetrically used to our disadvantage.
If someone has evidence and makes a reasoned argument, I’m all ears. When someone, like the above anon, froths at the mouth with no evidence, just repeating someone else’s talking points, not so much. Dismissing the latter expressins is entirely reasonable and not at all the same as blind hatred.
hullboby and milhouse
a) look like the same poster
b) attack the same way every time
c) attribute things never written
little paid attacker
HB – none of this is relevant.
It does not matter who funds what in a free market.
What matters is what people BUY.
As Adam Smith noted –
Consumption is the point and purpose of all production
What matters in an economy is that consumers gain more of what consumers want. How those desires are met is, at very best, a minor and secondary question
Umm, that’s not right.
Anon: Check your medications. You’re hallucinating and spewing hateful nonsense.
Control of Congress is not an obscure aspect of our political ecosystem – it is the focus of pretty much all political comentary in one way or the other
With respect to the rest of your screed – you sound all too much like Julius Streicher
Are you going to cite from the elders of Zion next ?
Absolutely many look favorably towards Israel – and properly should – while imperfect – as the US is imperfect, They are one of the most enlightened nations in the world.
No Israel is not guilty of “war crimes” – Fewer Palestinians were killed in the 2 year war against Hamas than the protesters Iran killed in a few days in February.
Regardless, Hamas committed a significant act of war against Isreal – proportionately worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11 in the US.
Given that Hamas was operating out of Mosques and Hospitals – an ACTUAL War crime, And that its fighters did NOT wear Uniforms – a War Crime and that they owften hid behind Women and Children – another War crime – the civilian casualties in Gaza were tiny.
In fact they were small compared to the US war in Afghanistan or Iraq.
The IDF is probably the most capable military in the world at Urban combat against terrorists with minimal civilian casualties.
Nor were palestinian casualties consequential in comparison to almost any conflict in the globe recently.
Casualties in Gaza were a few 10s or thousands – even by Hamas propoganda – far lower then the Birth rate.
The causalities in the Ukraine war are in the low millions – mostly civilian.
The conflict in Syria has had far mnore casualties – in fact has likely had far more casualties since the fighting Stopped as those in power purge other religions and sects from Syria.
Or the various conflicts in north Africa – Somalia, Ethiopia, …
The FACT is that you really do not care about civilian casualties or war crimes – you just hate Israel and the west.
Being anti-Israel – as stupid as it is, is not the same as being anti-semetic – though often they come together.
As to CNN/CBS and Barri Weis.
These networks are FAILING – most of the MSM is failing.
Elison bought these properties at a discount – with significant RISK – BECAUSE THEY ARE FAILING.
He brought Weis – who has been extremely successful in independent media in to turn things around.
Is she the perfect choice ? I doubt it. Is she experienced in broadcast news – not really.
But Musk knew little of electric cars when he bought Tesla. He knew little of Rockets when her built SpaceX.
Weis may fail, she may succeed. She with certainty will break things and fire people.
That is her job. If she turns CBS and CNN arround – she will become even more wealthy and fabulously successful,
If she fails -she will get the blame – blame that she does not entirely deserve. Failing to fix a failing enterprise is still failure – but it is not even close to being responsible for taking the flagships of american broadcast journalism and destroying them – which Weis has nothing to do.
You want to 2nd guess her choices – go ahead – but almost no one cares what you think – Certainly Ellison does not – and it is HIS money at risk – not yours. Nor does Elison care what the same people in CNN and CBS who got rich as they destroyed CNN and CBS.
The issue is NOT whether Weis is Pro Israel or not – She can be pro flying bananas – if she makes CNN and CBS profitable again.
Regardless YOU are not the audience CBS/CNN need to wing back – you are a part of the problem – not the solution.
If YOU want to control what CNN/CBS put on the air – do as Elison did – and BUY THEM.
or what Mush did and Build something new.
An YES it is a free market – YOU and YOUR billionaires are free to waste your money paying for the journalism you want.
While Elison and others are free to advance the jhournalism they want.
And in the end iMONEY decides – but NOT the Money left billionaires throw at propping up failing left wing Media, or the Money right Billionaires throw at buying or building right media.
But the money these businesses MNAKE because they attract larger audiences.
In a free market – Consumers decide – not billionaires.
The reason that Billionaires are billionaires is because they are very very good at figuring out what the largest portion of the people want – before those people know themselves and delivering it affordably.
That is how the free market ACTUALLY works.
You do not get rich selling schiff that no one wants.,
Looks like some of your antisemite buddies got busted, White House Freedom 250 plot involved up to 12 suspects across US with violent, radical ideologies: feds
https://nypost.com/2026/06/16/us-news/white-house-freedom-250-plot-involved-up-to-12-suspects/
A quick search found the following key statute: it’s Alaska Statute 15.25.030 (the Declaration of Candidacy requirement), and the key regulation is 6 AAC 25.212 (Appearance of candidate’s name on the ballot).
Alaska Statute 15.25.030 (Declaration of candidacy)
This statute sets the candidate filing requirements:
A person must execute and file a declaration of candidacy under oath
The declaration must state:
Full name and addresses
Office sought
Party/group affiliation (or undeclared)
Residency and length of residency
That the candidate will meet citizenship, voter, and age requirements
That the candidate requests their name be placed on the ballot
That the required fee accompanies the declaration
That the person is not a candidate for any other office at the same election
How the candidate wants their name to appear on the ballot
Beecher’s letter said the filing was “not done to declare an actual good-faith candidacy” but instead was “filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality”.
6 AAC 25.212 (Appearance of candidate’s name on the ballot)
This is the administrative rule that gives the director express authority to deny confusing names:
A candidate’s name may not appear on a ballot “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot”
A decision under this section is made by the director based on a preponderance of the evidence and may be directly challenged in superior court
Alaska Statute 15.25.060 (Preparation and distribution of ballots)
Beecher cited this statute in her letter:
“In accordance with Alaska Statute 15.25.060, a candidacy declaration intended to confuse or mislead voters, thereby compromising the integrity of the ballot, is not validly filed”
That is the textual hook she used to say the filing was invalid and to de-certify the candidacy
Appeal process
The candidate has 30 days to appeal the de-certification to Alaska Superior Court.
So the legal framework is:
Statutes: AS 15.25.030 (declaration requirements), AS 15.25.060 (ballot validity), plus the general election chapter in Title 15
Regulation: 6 AAC 25.212 (explicitly prohibits confusing or misleading ballot names and gives the director authority to decide that issue)
Remedy: Administrative appeal to Superior Court within 30 days
That regulation is where Beecher’s authority to block a confusing name on the ballot is most clearly grounded.
OLLY,
Thank you for providing that information and the clarification.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the Lt. Governor has launched an investigation into the matter. She has the authority to instruct state AGs and law enforcement to look into the matter to include warrants, interviews, signed statements.
Be interesting to see if this Dan J. Sullivan sticks around or quietly disappears. Same with Amber Lee.
Upstate, my only caution is the potential that this authority could be used in future elections to scrub legitimate candidates who don’t get their appeal completed before ballots are printed. This has been a recurring problem since our founding.
There’s always going to be fraudulent activity in our democratic process. One possible deterrent would be penalties so severe that the risks outweigh the rewards. But even with harsh penalties, we still need a fast court review that can happen before printing, not after. If the court cannot rule before the ballots go out, the system lets the election official decide the outcome instead of a judge.
Beecher may have used the power well this time, but the rule still needs a built-in fast appeal and a clear deadline for the court to act before printing. That is the only way to keep the eraser from becoming a shortcut to scrub legitimate candidates.
That’s odd. Why should the AG be involved. According to Olly director Beecher already had the authority to determine Dan J. Sullivan intended to confuse voters. Unless the real authority able to investigate intent is the AG not director Beecher. So by disqualifying Dan J. Sullivan before an official investigation she already exceeded her authority which would make his challenge of the disqualification much easier in court.
You’re not very good at this critical thinking thing. You are mixing up two different jobs. Beecher’s job is to decide whether the name is proper for the ballot. The AG’s job is to investigate whether there was criminal fraud.
The rule 6 AAC 25.212 gives Beecher the authority to decide whether a name is confusing or misleading. She does not need the AG to tell her that first. She can make that decision on her own using the facts in front of her. That is exactly what she did.
The LT Gov opening an investigation into possible fraud is a separate track. It does not change Beecher’s authority to remove the name from the ballot. If the AG later finds fraud, that could lead to criminal charges. But Beecher’s decision stands or falls on whether the name was confusing, not on whether the AG found a crime.
So Beecher did not exceed her authority by acting before the AG investigation. She acted under the rule that gives her the power to block confusing names. The AG investigation is just a second layer that could add criminal penalties if fraud is proven.
OLLY,
Thank you for pointing out what I thought was obvious.
With the annonys, hard to tell if they are being intentionally obtuse or they really do lack critical thinking skills. Likely the latter.
Olly, it’s clear you’re the one who is confused.
“ The rule 6 AAC 25.212 gives Beecher the authority to decide whether a name is confusing or misleading. She does not need the AG to tell her that first. She can make that decision on her own using the facts in front of her. That is exactly what she did.”
No, she did not do that. She did not exerciser the least restrictive remedy first. You keep ignoring that the statute gives her a direct remedy for the situation and it’s not disqualification. The facts in front of her are not facts they are assumptions. She has no absolute proof the candidate intended to confuse voters. Because her remedy, the one the law allows, is to distinguish the names on the ballots by adding middle initials, and the word “incumbent” next to he proper candidate.
Beecher can only remove the name on the ballot if the candidate fails these three things,
Failing to meet constitutional age or residency requirements.
Submitting a check that bounces for the mandatory filing fee.
Failing to submit the required declaration of candidacy forms before the hard statutory deadline.
Dan J. Sullivan met all the criteria required. Beecher’s only job is to verify he met the criteria not assume what his intentions were when he filed. Of any of the criteria was not met by Dan J. Sullivan then Beecher would have the authority to remove his name from the ballot. If there was suspicion of fraudulent intent Beecher would be required to refer the allegation to the state AG.
Beecher went beyond what the law allows to determine why a name should not be on the ballot.
But Beecher’s decision stands or falls on whether the name was confusing, not on whether the AG found a crime.
No. That’s wrong. Beecher’s decision stands if the candidate did not meet the three criteria required to file for office.
Beecher has at her disposal a legal remedy that is the least restrictive, such as putting in middle initials, suffixes, and the word “incumbent” next to their names. That alone would eliminate any confusion for voters. Beecher is making a decision based on an allegation that she cannot prove. That’s not part of her job.
Anonymous, you are clearly the sneaky commentator known as X, but you post as anonymous WHEN YOU WANT TO CONFUSE PEOPLE HERE BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID THAT YOU, AS “X,” MIGHT BE SLAPPED DOWN AGAIN WITH YOUR SILLY LAYMAN’S ARGUMENTS. Maybe we should create a rule for Turley’s blog, allowing us to call you out and take your name logo login meme avatar whatever OFF THIS BLOG.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have been pointing out Olly’s misinterpretation of the law and showed him why.
If you’re confused it’s because you may not have the capacity to follow the conversation and the cited laws.
It’s quite simple. There are some commenters here who keep conflating a lot of things and making conclusory statements based on those assumptions instead of following that the actual law says. The difficulty stems from a poor ability to understand what certain words mean in law and applying the correct context.
That is right! That Oli guy and Beecher don’t know the law like you do! Beecher did not see any evidence of attempts to confuse voters! She did not put two and two together to get 5! What she did was wrong as you point out! She should be put in prison! (pssst! X, I know it is you! I can tell by your writing style! Your secret is safe with me!)
UF – while anopther poster noted that a republican in FL was convicted for this kind of conduct – and Olly has noted law in Alaska.
I am scurry – law that fixates on the intent of a party – is unconstitutional.
Laws regarding ballot access (or anything else) must be neutral – they must not care about intent, They most focus on Acts and those acts always be a crime – regardless of intent to be enforced. must.
While courts and juru’s LIKE evidence that a crime was committed for bad reasons – that is not or should not be a requirement of the law.
If two people do the same thing – one can not be innocent and the other criminal – just because one had bad intentions.
We do not want courts making judgements solely based on intent.
Juries want evidence of Motive – intent – legitimately, because we like to beleive that bad acts are committed for a reason, and because it is extremely rare that they are not. It is reasonable for a jury to wonder if the accused committed the crime if the evidence is weak and the accused has no reason to commit the crime.
But whether motive can be proven or not – it is ACTS that are crimes – not intentions,
and we really really really do not want our laws to start criminalizing intent.
That is an open road to criminalizing those you disagree with.
The correct judicial decision on Alaska is for the court to do everything in its power short of removing someone from the ballot to reduce voter confusion – AND NO MORE.
Let Voters punish dirty tricksters – not the courts.
John, the AG handles the criminal side and any intent that goes into a crime. Beecher handles the administrative side and decides whether the name is proper for the ballot. She did that under clear statutory authority and under 6 AAC 25.212, which gives the director power to block confusing or misleading names.
The appeal process is the remedy. The candidate has 30 days to challenge the decision in superior court, and that court will sort out whether the rule is constitutional and whether Beecher’s evidence supports her decision. If the court finds the rule invalid or the evidence too thin, the candidate wins. If the court finds the rule valid and the evidence strong, the candidate loses. But until the court rules, Beecher is operating under the law as it stands.
Olly, no, no, no, no. There is absolutely no requirement to disqualify a candidate just because there is a confusing name. That is not the what the law says.
The most immediate remedy is to apply what the law has for this kind of problem. Beecher can add the middle initial, a suffix, or put the word “incumbent” next to the candidate’s name. It’s the least restrictive remedy. There is no need for an appeals court to be involved unless Beecher went beyond what the law allows.
There’s absolutely no reason to block a name just because it’s confusing. Voters are not stupid.
She does not have the authority to just take the name off just because it’s confusing when there is an immediate remedy in the law she can use. It can’t get any more simple than that.
Beecher is operating beyond what the law allows. That is the problem. You’re confusing a lot of things with these statutes and conflating a lot of things that are not part of the statutes. This is the source of your misinterpretation of the statutes.
I have pointed out multiple times why your view of the statutes is incorrect and included the actual text of the statutes. You at one point claimed there was a requirement for a candidate to swear they are filing in good-faith. You conceded there was no such requirement.
That’s exactly right. The least restrictive means to remedy the issue should be the first thing that should have been done. Not the most, which is to remove a candidate from the ballot.
Alaska law already gives director Beecher the solution she needs to address the confusion issue. Instead she chose the most extreme solution based on her assumption of what the candidate’s intent was.
The problem is Beecher is assuming there is an intent without proof. It’s not her job to investigate or assume what the intent is.
She ignored the legal remedy available to address any confusion. The statute explicitly cites what can be used to distinguish similar candidate names. She did not to that. She elected to do the most extreme measure, one that she was not legally allowed to do because she was basing it on a ‘hunch’ not incontrovertible proof.
6 AAC 25.212 Does Not Authorize “Disqualification” the text states that a name may not appear in a manner that is confusing. The lawful administrative remedy for a name overlap is to change the formatting—such as mandating a full middle name (“Dan J. Sullivan”) or adding the tag “Incumbent” next to the sitting senator.
It does not grant the director the power to completely de-certify an entire candidacy and strip a citizen of ballot access based on their name or assumed intent.
“ That regulation is where Beecher’s authority to block a confusing name on the ballot is most clearly grounded.”
No, it isn’t. She has no such authority. Nobody has cited the specific statute explicitly saying she can disqualify a candidate based on an assumption or intent.
You argue that Director Beecher relied on “objective facts” to hit the preponderance threshold. However, an objective look at those exact facts reveals they are completely legal actions that do not inherently prove a fraudulent conspiracy.
His legal name is genuinely Dan Sullivan. Running for office under your own name is a right, not a “dirty trick.”
A single typo or historical preference on a prior document does not inherently prove a 51% intent to commit ballot fraud.
Using a standard, blue-and-red template for a political campaign website is a ubiquitous practice across the United States.
Being a Democrat or having friends who are Democratic consultants is protected political association under the First Amendment.
By stringing together these completely legal, circumstantial elements, Beecher did not establish a true “preponderance of evidence” of fraud; she engaged in partisan speculation.
She used the most restrictive means possible. The least restrictive means should be used first by using the administrative remedies already at her disposal: printing the candidates’ full middle names and clearly marking the incumbent on the ballot.
X, try again.
That is right! There was no proof! Belcher did not have any evidence of any kind! She just saw some random things and said two plus two equals 5! She should be thrown in prison! (pssst! X, I know it is you! Your secret is safe with me!)
Olly – another left wing poster noted that some Republican did this in Florida some time ago.
Absolutely it is a dirty trick.
But it is also perfectly constitutional and thwarting it is a violation of constitutional rights.
The Alaska law you cited – and the one used to prosecute the Republican in FL are unconstitutional.
FL and Alaska can have NEUTRAL rules that set the requirements for being on the ballot.
It CAN NOT have rules or laws that deny anyone who meets NEUTRAL rfules access to the ballot because theyt purportedly have bad intent.
The courts – in FL or Alaska can properly enforce ACTAULLY neutral rules.
They can also properly act to minimize electorate confusion – but they can not act to deny someone the right to run for election purely because they believe their intents are bad..
The court could legitimately Require the “other” Dan Sullivan to appear on the ballot in ways that minimize the confusion of the electorate – Requiring that his party afiliation – or non-afliation be listed, or allowing the better known candidate to be listed as an incumbenbt or former incumbent -= if he so chose. By requiring middle initials if they are different – or full legal names. Or any of myriads of other measures to reduce confusion on the part of the electorate.
But just because this is almost certainly a plitical dirty trick – does not mean that the courts – or Alaska law have the constitutional power to prevent it. If the “other” Dan Sullivan met the requirements to be on the ballot – then he must be on the ballot – regardless of alleged nafarious intent. Or even proven beyond any doubt nefarious intent.
The court can do most anything SHORT of remove a candidate who met the NEUTRAL requirements of election law to diminish confusion.
The can not deny even reprehensible scum and dirty tricksters access tot he ballot.
The Alaska law you cited – and the one used to prosecute the Republican in FL are unconstitutional.
John, if you think this law is unconstitutional, you need to show where and when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Until the court says so, the law is still valid and binding. Beecher followed the current statute and the administrative rule 6 AAC 25.212, which gives the director authority to block confusing or misleading names.
The next step is the appeal process. The candidate has 30 days to challenge the decision in superior court, and that court will decide whether the rule is constitutional and whether Beecher’s inference was supported by enough evidence. But until the court rules, Beecher is operating under the law as it stands, not under something the court has already struck down.
Olly, you’re going in circles. Rule 6 AAC 25.212, does the director authority to block confusing or misleading names. The rule governs the APPEARANCE and FORMATTING of names on the ballot to ensure neutrality. It says nothing about blocking names because they may be confusing.
It does not—and legally cannot—grant an administrative director the sweeping discretionary power to completely disqualify an otherwise eligible citizen who meets all statutory requirements under AS 15.25.042.
Florida’s legal framework relies on specific criminal statutes targeting fraudulent campaign financing and conspiracy to violate election laws. It does not empower an executive branch election director to unilaterally strip a candidate of ballot access based on an administrative formatting rule.
When an official like Carol Beecher enforces a statute in a way that infringes on a candidate’s explicit Article I or First Amendment rights, her action is unconstitutional the moment she takes it, regardless of whether the Alaska Supreme Court has previously ruled on that exact scenario.
Well, well, well !!!
The Reflecting Pool in DC has turned bright green due to a massive algal bloom. As we speak, workers are pouring gallon jugs of hydrogen peroxide into the pool to try to kill it. Problem is it would require about 30,000 gallons of peroxide to reach a concentration to kill algae.
So why is this happening ????
As any scientist, or pool expert will tell you, when a pool is painted blue it absorbs a lot more heat from sunlight. This raises the water temperature, which then increases the rate of algae growth.
Aged, unpainted concrete, which was the state of the pool before painting, has a solar absorptivity of about 40%.
Concrete painted blue has a solar absorptivity of about 80%.
So painting the pool has doubled the heating effect of solar energy, and massively enhanced algal growth.
This is what happens when you get rid of all the scientists in an administration.
You obviously have NEVER owned a pool. Algae blooms are due to nutrient loading in the water, nitrogen and phosphate. In any waterbody this can come from organic debris such as leaves, fertilizer runoff and other debris. In a pool this is typically controlled by the addition of chlorine through the use of hypochlorite. In a reflection pool there are other natural clarifying solutions including filter feeders, an algacide like CuSO3 is a viable solution.
Try again TDStupid.
Irrelevant spin, just like the White House explanation.
For a given nutrient load, which has not changed by painting the pool, if you raise the temperature you get a significant increase in growth rate. Painting the pool blue would raise the temperature by 5 to 10 degrees. A 10 degree increase in temperature would at least double and perhaps triple the growth rate.
Try again MAGA moron !!
By the way, if you are correct, which you are not, about the cause of the bloom, then why are they using hydrogen peroxide.
Why aren’t they using hypochlorite or copper sulphate ???
I’ll tell you why. They are idiots, and as I said this is what happens when you get rid of all the scientists.
And also, it is copper SULFATE that is used as an algacide. The formula you cite of CuSO3 is copper SULFITE, which has no effect on algal growth.
You simply illustrate that idiocy and incompetence reigns supreme in MAGA world.
The fact you are so obsessed with the reflection pool and algae illustrates your idiocy and incompetence.
Massive TDS – Yes Algae responds to temperature – all things being equal . The optimal temperature for Algea is 68-86F.
Above or below those Algae dies.
Further the impact of the color of the pool on the temperature of the water is ALSO going to depend on the Ambient temperature
A dark blue pool will INCREASE Algae – based on YOUR claims of 5-10F temperature gain – in reality the effect is going to depend on far more than the color – such as the depth, and the circulation and the volume of water and the day and night temperatures for many many prior days.
Regardless USING YOUIR idiotic claims – the average temp in DC over the past week was 75F – a 10F increase as a result of painting the pool Blue would result in a 85F water temp – that is at the very high end of what would support Algae –
The Peak Temp in the pat week was 97F – which if sustained would kill the Algae – no matter what color the pool was and would kill it FASTER if the Pool was Blue.
Conversely a White Pool would have put the pool temperature right dead center in the OPTIMAL temperature for Algae.
Contra you left wing nut TDS idiotic claim – the Dark Blue Pool under the Current average temperatures would be 2nd ONLY to black in REDUCING algae.
But AGAIN – overall the color of the pool has ZERO impact on Algae in the Pool – atleast not anywhere with Seasons.
Why ? Because no matter what color you paint the pool there will be a time of year when that color results in optimal temps for Algae
and many other times when it results in LETHAL temps for Algae.
In my example above I used YOUR claimed temperature increases from a Blue pool.
With near certainty you are WRONG. As I note MYRIADS of factors actually effect the pool temperature – There is absolutely no such thing as the correct color for a pool to prevent Algae. The effect of the color of the pool on Algae growth will depend on the heat gains in the day, the heat losses at night – the cloud cover – day and night, the average temperature – the size of the body of water,
the flow of fresh water into the pool. and on and on and on.
At the very most the color of a pool – all other things being equal will determine what parts of the year will be lethal for Algae and what parts of the year will be beneficial.
That’s a lot of talk for being wrong.
While 68–86°F is a rapid growth zone for many green algae species, higher temperatures do not kill it. In fact, common pool algae and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) thrive in water temperatures well above 85°F, with peak growth rates often occurring between 90°F and 95°F.
A quick google search can confirm that.
Clearly you don’t understand how thermodynamics and heat loss work in large bodies of water. Darker water retains more energy, but the energy is absorbed over a longer period of time, its what allows algae to grow faster. The increases in temperature are gradual.
X! You are just so smart! You know every thing about every thing! Construction! Rent! What it takes to be a land lord! The law! And now algae! You are the smartest person you know!
ATS – the Prior color of the pool was Grey – the current Blue absorbs SLIGHTLY LESS solar radiation than Grey.
You are drowning in TDS.
While it is absolutely true that the color of the pool will effect the temperature – and that the water temperature can create lethal or beneficial conditions for Algae – Assuming ALL the other requirements for Algae are also met – there are so many other variables and the difference between blue and grey in heat absorption is so small, that there is negligible impact on Algae.
Further therte is no “expert” issue here – ANY Color you paint the pool – given all the other fixed factors AND the seasonal conditions in DC will just shift when in the year optimal or lethal conditions for Algae occur.
But the difference between Blue and Grey is so tiny as to be meaningless.
The pool wa NOT White before – it was Grey. There is likely less than a 1F difference in pool temp between Grey and Blue and that will shift the peak for Algae in the pool at most a few days – it will NOT result in more algae.
All you have done is proven YOU are the one who ius an IYI -= Intellectual yet idiot.
You confuse ONE fact that you think you know – the solar absorption of Blue with knowing ALL the facts – such as what the color was before. Or what optimal and lethal conditions are for Algae and what the impact of the color will be through all the seasons.
My guess is that you are fairly well educated – but like so many that educated today – you lack critical thinking skills and that you confuse a bit of knowledge about one fact with understanding the real world.
I hope to god that you are NOT an engineer – because if you are you are incredibly dangerous.
In the real world ALMOST all the choices we make have positive and negative effects – further that balance of positive and negative varies over time – as an example with seasons.
The point of the exercise was to have a pool that didn’t have algae. That effort failed spectacularly. If using copper (II) sulfite / CuSO3 was an intended control, it would have been introduced when the pool was filled.
Where did the phosphate come from? It is freshly filled and was completely clean of algae by the application of the pools coating.
If it was stored in the pipes – then the pipes should have been cleaned and drained and treated to kill any algae.
In other words, Trump had one job – prevent algae from coating the reflecting pool and he failed miserably. Had the contract been let for competitive bids, then the details of the task could have been examined to ensure this stupid result would not occur.
“What you are seeing is residual algae from the supply lines, which have been sitting dormant for eight weeks while construction has been taking place.”
[…]
“Now, due to deploying the advanced nanobubbler technology, the algae is dead and being vacuumed up as we speak.”
If you believe that nonsensical spin, I can offer you a fantastic deal on a great bridge in NYC.
Something much more interesting, FBI stopped alleged terror plot to attack UFC 250 event with drones and snipers, officials said
https://justthenews.com/government/security/fbi-stopped-alleged-terror-plot-attack-ufc-250-event-drones-and-snipers
I will wait for them to release the names and possible nationalities of the would be attackers.
Good on Kash Patel, the FBI and all the other LEO involved.
ROFL – as other posters have pointed out – water temperature is only one of several requirements for Algae.
BTW the Relfacting Poll has ALWAYS had an Algae problem and While Trump said the pool was being painted American Flag Blue – the actual reason for the choice of Blue – BY EXPERTS was to reduce Algae – the Blue alone proved insufficient.
That was a interesting bit of history professor.
Good on Ms. Beecher for her investigation, saw the evidence and facts before her, came to a conclusion and acted accordingly.
By any means necessary is the motto of the modern Democrat party. From Nazi tattooed, alleged physical and emotional abuse, sexting while married, longingly looks at port-o-potties, and so much more, and now to trying to confuse voters to split the vote.
Stay classy Dems!
What evidence? She’s assuming that’s the intent without evidence.
She’s INFERRING intent FROM evidence, like the trickster’s asking Io appear in the ballot using a variant of his name he had never voted under
Whichever word you want to use she went beyond her authority. That’s the problem.
No, she didn’t. The statute explicitly gives her the authority.
I agree – but the statute is unconstitutional.
The rules for ballot access must be neutral – they can not give intent any weight.
Cite the statute that specifically authorized her to remove the candidate because of intent. I’ll wait.
And the court has the power to use any permutation of the “other” Dan Sullivan’s name it wishes on the Ballot to avoid confusion.
But it is unconstitutional to remove him from the ballot just because she concluded – likely correctly that his intentions were bad.
You don’t seem to believe the facts as presented
You likely didn’t believe Joe Biden was in ill health, mental and physical, because there was no evidence.
What facts? She’s making conclusory statements devoid of any hard evidence. She’s going beyond her authority to make that determination.
The facts speak for themselves. The fraudulent intent is obvious. The only question is whether the law gives a remedy, and the answer is that in this case yes, it does.
The other guy saw there was a candidate with the same name and he decided he could run too.
What if the Democrat was deranged and not trying to confuse Republicans into voting for a Democrat?
Derangement is the common claim, right?
It figures the judge has to protect low information Republican voters.
I agree, but the law is still unconstitutional.
Intent alone is not a crime – it is not even fraud.
This is a political dirty trick – the evidence is there to establish that – but all wrong things are not crimes.
Nor are they sufficient to deprive the fraudster of their rights.
The court can act to reduce confusion – but it can not violate rights will doing so – not even the rights of those with bad intentions.
And the remedy is NOT removal.
Just read the good professor’s column. It pretty much speaks for itself as to the facts and what Ms. Beecher saw and acted on.
Further, the Lt. Governor of Alaska has also opened an investigation. She has the authority to instruct the states AG and other law enforcement to investigate.
Upstate, I agree that Beecher is following the statute and the administrative rule. The facts in Turley’s column line up with what the Division of Elections cited: identical name, the attempted “S” middle initial, copycat website, and ties to a Democratic consultant. That is a classic confusing-name case under 6 AAC 25.212, and AS 15.25.060 gives her the “properly filed” hook to remove it.
The Lt. Governor opening an investigation is a separate track. It does not change the ballot decision, but it could add pressure if there is actual coordination or fraud. Either way, Beecher’s action stands on the statute and the rule, not on speculation.
Olly – I agree this was a dirty trick and that is proven fairly well.
But the rules for ballot access must be neutral – and that means they CAN NOT take into account “intent”.
I do not like political dirty ticks – but unless they are actual violations of someones rights – it is up to the electorate to punish “dirty tricks”
I do not like Gerrymandering either – but I 100% support the recent SCOTUS decisions that say political gerrymandering is outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
WE the people punish political dirty tricks throuhg elections – not the courts.
The judge is free to reduce the confusion about the candidates – but Not to remove the trickster from the ballot.
I am sorry – there is no crime here – not even if there is a huge conspiracy.
There is bad acts – that should be punished by the electorate.
Not the courts – not prosecutors.
While I agree that sshe exceded her authority – and that statutes empowering her to remove people from the ballot who met neutral requirements for ballot access are unconstitutional,
I absolutely disagree that she was powerless. The courts can not violate someones rights – merely because they are engaged in a dirty trick – proven or not.
But they can do all kinds of things that leave the “other” Dan Sulivan on the ballot -= while making it clear to voters that he is NOT the party endorsed candidate or that he is not the well known politician and former representative.
As those of you on the left do all the time.
Which is why It is bad acts that are crimes – not bad intents.
While I applaud Turley at bringing this dirty trick to public attention – I beleive the judge in this case erred.
Absent a failure of the other Dan Sulivan to meet NEUTRAL requirements for ballot access – he CAN NOT be removed.
The role of the courts in this case is to reduce the confusion of the electorate as much as possible – without infringing on anyone’s rights.
Removing someone from the ballot is infringiment.
Requiring additional information on the ballot to inform voters is NOT.
The Dan Sulivan that is a well known Alaska Politicians can have anything that is correct and short appended to his name – like Former Rep, incumbent or R if he so choses.
While the “Other” Dan Sulivan can be required to be identified by his full name – I beleive he is a Jr. a middle initial, etc.
While this wil not eliminate all possibility of confusion – it does help, and it does not violate any rights.
Further articles Like Turley’s can call attention to the malfeasance and dirty tricks of Democrats – allowing people to judge the “other: Dan Sullivan as well as the democratic party accordingly.
Thje correct answer to dirty tricks – particularly tricks that are just bad intention-ed exercises of constitutional rights is to bring them to the attention of the public -0 not thwart them in court.
Sigh. Dirty tricks and hate are all the modern left has.
Sigh !!!
You make the same stupid comment here every day no matter what the topic.
You spend all day here, and clearly have absolutely no life outside this worthless blog.
Look in the mirror ano
YOU are here too.
Grow-up
Dustoff is yet another MAGA moron who has absolutely no life outside this blog.
Ano
absolutely no life outside this blog.
________________________
OOOOOOOOO Yes I do. Picking on you and enjoying myself.
This blog has value—many comments are worthless but Turley has value
The only “value” of this worthless blog is to provide a venue for MAGA morons to vent their frustrations and expound on their sense of victimhood.
Value is subjective – obviously this blog has value to you – you read Turley, you read others, and you post.
You are an idiot for trying to claim otherwise and for pi$$ing on others who are doing the same as you.
The fact that your political values are different does not change your rights – or theirs.
That comment gets repeated – because it is true.
James,
Well, they sure dont run on their policies. Other than, “We are not Trump!”
Thank God the left has a low percentage of the weapons
It looks like Congress can legislate state election policy, and any bits not so legislated are up to the individual states. Congress needs to ban ranked-choice voting. If a party follows the law they should be guaranteed that their chosen candidate will be on the ballot. Ranked choice is tyrannical
Congress can regulate frederal election policy – that would apply here as this election is for congress.
Ranked choice voting is not only a bad idea – it is not even clearly one thing – there are myriads of ways to conduct ranked choice voting each with different effects.
But ranked choice voting is not unconstitutional – The voters of alaska need to get rid of it – not congress.
Are you saying that Congress can’t or that they shouldn’t intervene?
The CAN with respect to federal elections.
They SHOULD NOT.
Alaska voters should get rid of this because it is a bad idea.
While various forms of ranked choice voting are prefered by the left. And Ranked Choice Voting is problematic because it does NOT actually produce an objectively correct result.
I personally greatly prefer SNAP runnoffs – if you do not win by more than 1% AND you do not get atleast 50% of the vote – then the state should hold a runnoff – as quickly as possible – Days not weeks later.
But that is MY PREFERENCE – it to is NOT an objectively correct way to conduct an election.
But the absolute WORST way to conduct an election is to have the courts decide the outcome
Ranked choice IS an improvement over courts.
CRV v. Plurality voting definitely needs examination. Ordinary people really don’t understand and a recount should be funny ha ha.
Ranked choice voting eliminates the competent but controversial, in favor of the mtoediocre but inoffensive. E-headntoxample: Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, CA.
Actual head-to-head voting forced you to pick the best candidate, rather than the least worst.
That is nonsense. Ranked choice is precisely what allows people to vote for whom they really want, free from the fear of wasting their vote. Under ranked choice there is no such thing as a wasted vote. Every vote always counts, until it is exhausted. If the voter ranked all the candidates, then their vote remains in effect throughout and is never wasted.
Mill, there are 100 voters. If candidate 1 receives 51 votes, a threshold for win. Her votes were actually 61. Are the 10 votes distributed to the next candidate in line, same party? CRV, candidate ranked voting? Is there any distribution of votes happening after threshold is met?
Idk, it’s not intuitive. You’re thinking CRV has no distribution? It may or may not. Makes a count cumbersome. Idk.
Variables include huge candidate lists with nothing more than I’m running for office. Beecher is diligent.
Millhouse – there are many ways to run ranked choice elections – they are all different and on occasion they produce different results.
As to your argument – the problem is that most Ranked choice voting treats 2nd and 3rd choice votes EQUAL to first choice votes for SOME voters.
I am going to use an example from ONE RC scheme – there are many.
If after the first “round” there is no clear winner – the candidate with the lowest votes is removed and their 2nd choice votes are assigned to those candidates – but EVERY 2nd choice is NOT assigned – only the worst performing candidate.
The result is a 2nd choice vote for the least popular candidate has the same value as a first choice vote.
There is NO means to resolve close elections that is objectively correct – but assigning 2nd choice votes starting from the least popular candidate until there is a winner is a poor approach.
I personally prefer runnoffs – but they are not objectively best either. There is no RIGGT way to do it.
I prefer runnoffs because USUALLY – a runnoff eliminates all but the top 2 candidates – and EVERYONE gets to vote again
I think people give more thought to their first choice then other choices.
And when their first choice is eliminated and they must vote again – then they give more thought to that.
There are other features – preferences of NORMAL runnoffs I like.
First you must get 50% of the vote and you must win by atleast 1pt
Next they reduce the involvement of the courts (so does rankjed choice) which is a good thing. Courts need as far from politics as possible.
Next you get to vote again OR NOT VOTE.
NOT VOTING is a perfectly legitimate choice.
I absolutely hate systems like AU where voting in manditory.
Globally the most stable and best governments are those with the LOWEST election turnout.
People do nbot show up for elections – unless one candidate or the other is proposing to do something that angers them.
Not showing up is a vote too – and an important one a choice to be respected not disdained.
Bulldust. Preferential voting (“ranked choice” or whatever you want to call it) guarantees that an absolute majority of voters prefer the winner over any viable alternative.
What’s peculiar about the Alaskan implementation is that they have a primary first, to eliminate all but four candidates. That’s completely unnecessary. There should be only one round, in November, with as many candidates on the ballot as wish to run. Voters can rank them all in their order of preference, or as many as they care to rank. Rather than this stupid fill-in-the-bubble nonsense, let them just write a number in the box, as they do in Australia and in Ireland. Neither of those countries has any problem counting the votes, by hand.
How do you know they have no problem counting votes by hand?
Have you seen the poor quality of America handwriting?
Again you confuse Preferences with objectively correct.
There are many objectively wrong ways to run an election – Mail In voting being near the top of the list.
Ranked choice is not objectively wrong. It is just your prefence – and one that many people legitimately do not like
Australia is a poor choice of an example – Australia has manditory voting – a huge mistake, and thoroughly screwed up politics.
Regardless you keep trying to explain what Ranked choice voting is – as if we will improve our view if we understand it better – people understand it fine. In most cases they voted for it. But very large numbers do not like it.
While I do not like ranked choice voting – I sort of agree with you regarding primaries.
States should NEVER run primaries. It is not their business. BTW eliminate primaries and you can eliminate voter registration ENTIRELY.
Just require VOTER ID on election day – no registration – just ID that proves you are a citizen and a resident of that polling district.
States can have NEUTRAL rules for getting on the ballot – they can even allow access to the ballot of candidates chosen by their parties – either in smoke filled rooms, or party run primaries, or using ouija boards. But there must be a reasonable way on to the ballot without the support of a political party – like gathering signatures.
Also ballots should Always have “none of the above” as a choice AND require the winner to get over 50% of the vote AND 1% more than their oponent – and “None of the above” votes count as votes AGAINST everyone.
But these are my PREFERENCES.
It is important that we distinguish between our personally prefered way of conducting an election – and ways that are actually WRONG.
Everything that complicates an election – increases the risk and scale of fraud – ESPECIALLY things that make voting EASIER.
Most everything that makes voting easier – makes fraud easier.
Mailin Voting is objectively an open invitation to fraud.
Secret ballots – the so called “Austrailian” voting is about as close as we can come to Objectively correct.
And making Fraud the hardest.
I oppose mailin voting, early voting, no excuse absentee voting, with very few exceptions – like the military all voting should be at your precinct on election day.
The more options you provide – the more of a mess you get – the more difficult counting votes becomes, and the more you drag the courts into elections – and that is bad for elections, bad for the country and bad for the courts.
You eliminate Fraud by Simple Systems that are transparent and easy to understand.
I program embedded computers – I have no doubt we can make excellent computers for voting, and tabulating.
but we should not.
Vote on paper, and count ballots by hand in public – that is the simplest and the system that results in the greatest trust.
I also want the count to be done in a few hours – and that means no mailin, or early voting
When everyone votes in person on election day – it is much harder to vote multiple times, it is much harder for dead people to vote.
And YOU KNOW that if ballots are found to be injected – they came from election officials – not voters or political parties or ballot harvestors. No one handles a filled out ballot except the voter in the poll and the election workers.
No one has access to a blank ballot outside polls except election workers
The french count paper ballots from 80M people by hand overnight. There are few things the french do right – that is one.
iIf there are not enough people – impliment a system like Jury duty.
In fact just do that period – elect a SMALL number of election officials in the PRIOR election. Then call up everyone else you need using a system like Jury Duty. If you are selected at random – it is your legal obligation to help count the vote.
You also want SMALL precincts – no more than a few thousand voters per poll.
If votes are counted PUBLICLY – then ALL first pass tallies will be public knowledge – in an “expection” to my no computers rule – I would have these randomly selected election workers in groups of 3 count say 1000 ballots by hand – and then report PUBLICLY the tally of that 1000 ballots – and put it right onto the internet. Now all the media, everyone on the internet will be able to see the count in REAL TIME
Long before states have official totals – the media will have tallied the vote.
Again KISS – and transparency prevent fraud – public tallies of small batches of ballots with no one ever counting more than 1000 ballots – mean s that there is no oportunity for consequential fraud in counting or tallying the votes.
This system means in the course of your lifetime – you have about a 1 in 3 chance of being called up to count ballots.
SOME of the above is meaningful ways to reduce Fraud that actually work and are simple.
If everyone votes on election day and everyone presents ID when they vote – you do not have to check if someone already voted in the massive mess than CA has right now.
If you make election service like voting duty – and you pay for it the same – you have not swelled govenrment with large numbers of employees that you have to keep busy the rest of the year.
While the above is not immune to Fraud – it is very hard to commit large scale fraud.
This is a report about a counterfeit Gucci purse seeking to take the oath of elective office to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. “By any means necessary” is a slogan. Slogan derives from the Celtic slough gairm. Battle Cry. That is why we do not see it as “By any honorable means”. Who among us is not angered by purchase of the purse off the shelf? Johnathan’s column diffuses knowledge of that purse. That knowledge empowers us to vote back in honorable means.
My bad. Login.
Does anyone believe any politician has total honesty flowing through their veins?
They all come in with a couple of nickels in their pockets and retire with a few million dollars; amazing!
Considering they are predominantly lawyers, hell no!
Riiiight, because the GOP would never pull a stunt like this… Accept when Frank Atrtiles was convicted for hiring a guy with the same name as his opponent expressly to siphon off votes. Or the several instances of the tactic being used against Democrat city council members in NYC. Christ Turley, you really have become just the emptiest of shills. To think I used to spend hours defending you to the Torts class, arguing that we had to respect your commitment to your position even if we didn’t agree with it. Didn’t that age like milk. People are being kidnapped from the streets by mask-wearing lawless thugs, the DOJ is ignoring court orders, Trump is selling crypto during a cage match on the white house lawn while his illegal war drones on … and you’re here writing about this crap. I don’t know where your spine went, but I hope you were paid well for it.
Did you read the article? The professor literally mentions when the republicans tried to use this same tactic against Dick Gephardt.
> People are being kidnapped from the streets by mask-wearing lawless thugs
I assume you’re talking about ICE arresting illegal aliens and deporting them. That is the opposite of lawless. On the other hand, if you’re talking about the rampant crime is leftist run cities, you’re probably right.
> the DOJ is ignoring court orders
False. The DOJ is lawfully appealing court orders.
> Trump is selling crypto during a cage match on the white house lawn while his illegal war drones on
The war is over. Keep up. (And there hasn’t been a major attack on Iran in weeks.)
different Anon, but I believe, also, the crypto thing was found to be fake SM messages generated by ne’er-do-wells to sow more confusion. IIRC, it’s Don Jr they tried to pull into it with claiming he was tweeting at Dana about crypto betting for the UFC matches, when the two of them have never even actually met.
Interesting, I wasn’t sure what the crypto thing was about, I can’t keep up with the amount of leftist disinformation these days. It’s just like the Karmelo Anthony thing. There are large swaths of the left that believe Anthony was being held down and beaten by racist white kids when he pulled out a tiny pen-knife to defend himself, and then an all-white jury convicted him.
In reality, of course, the eye witness testimony and forensic evidence shows that he was pushed out of a tent that he wasn’t allowed in (it was for the team only, and he didn’t even attend that school). Instead of simply walking away, he responded by pulling a 5 inch blade and coming back into the tent to stab Austin Metcalf in the heart. And, of course, a full third of the jury was non-white.
Atriles engaged in a political dirty trick – just as is being done here – but neither those in the Turley article or Atriles should have been convicted of anything.
With regard to your rant about Turley – you xshould not have needed to “defend Turley” – One matters of law he is RARELY wrong.
Further the law – in law school is NOT about agreeing or disagreeing. If you do not like the law as it is – become a politician and change the law. In Law School you should be taught what the law is and to FOLLOW IT.
Presumably you are talking about ICE – NO PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING KIDNAPPED FROM THE THE STREETS BY MASKED LAWLESS THUGS.
If you do not like the law – CHANGE THE LAW.
A harvard-harris poll on immigration came out a few days ago. This is the same poll that was conducted a year ago that found super majorities favoring deportation.
What has changed in the past year – support for mass deportation has INCREASE 6-8%
56% of Americans support deporting ALL illegal aliens.
Over 80% support deporting any convicted or accuse of crimes.
There is a reason you are not trying to “change the law”
Because you can’t and you know it.
You do not have the popular support to do so.
As to the rest of your non-sense – quit threatening LEO’s and their families who are just doing their job and they will not need masks.
Didn;t we learn how stupid an idea it was to pi$$ all over those who are just doing their jobs after Vietnam ?
If you do not like the law – TAKE IT TO CONGRESS.
Do what J6 protesters tried and Petition Government AT THE CAPITAL – where they CAN but will NOT do what you want.
If LEOs – ANY LEOs – actually violate the law – Then and only then should you be protesting law enforcement.
Regardless, no one is being kidnapped – they are being returned home.
Further no police officer needs a warrant to arrest a known criminal on the streets – they need a warrant to arrest them in their homes.
Uh Oh – time to put up the Batman-like Donkey Shadow on the search light in Juneau to call on a DEEP BLUE Black Robe Illuminati to OVERRULE this decision and order a Doppleganger back on the ticket to ensure the Leftist Strategy is victorious!!! Whew, those pesky GOP types keep trying to sabotage a great dirty trick that could be rolled out big time across America and ensure the Socialist Paradise is established quickly!
In a reality where voting is restricted to those who can reasonably be expected to inform themselves accurately and comprehensively on candidates and issues before casting a ballot, such a disqualification would be completely unnecessary. Unfortunately, that state of affairs was (deliberately?) engineered out of this Republic long, long ago.
I get what you’re saying, but I am not ready to hand some clerk the keys to decide who is “smart enough” to vote. We already ran that experiment with property tests, literacy tests, and all the other clever ways elites kept the “unreliable” people out of the booth.
What I want is the opposite. I want every adult citizen in, and I want them trained from the ground up to treat that ballot like a sworn statement. In that world, you do not need to yank a fake Sullivan off the ballot because voters spot the stunt and punish the people behind it.
So yes, Beecher caught this one, and I am glad. But the long game is not to engineer the electorate down to a supposedly “informed” few. The long game is to grow a people who are informed enough that tricks like this die on contact with the voters, not in the election office.
Beecher’s actions are actually illegal. He’s assuming voters are too stupid to make the distinction. That’s not his job. Voters whether they understand or not are responsible for their own decisions. Not Beecher. No amount of ‘growth’ will change that.
Just to start with, Carol Beecher is a woman, so read the article next time. Secondly, her actions are legal and even heroic, so read the law next time, Sleestak.
You don’t cite any law stating her actions are legal. Just as she did, you assume it was.
Nobody has to cite anything to respond to a baseless claim.
And stop misgendering or I’ll report you to the DNC.
The law was cited above – her actions are absolutely legal – they are just unconstitutional.
But given that few on the left or right actually care about the rights or fraudsters – she will not be overturned – or likely appealed.
To Anon. ‘Sleestak’ Grow up! Put your big boy or big girl pants on and see that not all The World is Woke like you.
No Beechers actions are uinconstitutional. While SHE can legitimately doall kinds of things to reduce voter confusion – especially where someone is intentially tryingf to confuse voters. She can not remove people from the ballot.
She can require that the Two Dan Sullivan’s appear on the ballot such that therte is as little confusion as possible.
But she can not remove one.
As to voters telling the difference – How ?
If the Ballot has two identical names listed for the same office – how does ANYONE tell which is which ?
She would be absolutely correct in requiring that the listings be suifficiently different to be able to EASILY tell them apart.
You must know that the literacy tests weren’t tests of literacy, but were vaguely worded with no clear answers, leaving it up to the poll worker whether to allow a person to vote. Oddly, this was mostly a case of white poll workers declining to allow Black voters into the polls.
Olly – respectfully I disaggree.
Any legitimate approach to anything – can and will be abused.
Poll taxes are now unconstitutional – but they actually were an excellent idea – even if the were abused.
The amount needs to be deminimus, – but it is surprising how small a cost it takes to transform people from making stupid decisions to wise ones. Shortly after PPACA passed – a poll found that something like 80% of the country would not support PPACA if it cost them $100/yr personally. In reality it costs all of us much more than that.
I absolutely support the elimination of property taxes, corporate taxes, taxes on wealth, taxes on income.
Government should be paid for from property taxes. If property taxes pay for ALL of govenrment – EVERYONE knows THEY will pay the cost directly. All taxes are ultimately paid by the masses – either in increased costs or lost increases in standard of living.
Nor do I have a problem with literacy tests to vote – but historically “literacy tests” were implemented discriminatory – in violation fo the 14th amendment. Jim Crow laws excepted people who had voted previously or whose fathers had voted or whose grandfathers had voted – so ONLY blacks had to pass literacy tests. Had everyone had to pass a literacy test to vote – that would have been GOOD not bad.
I am 100% in favor of neutral voting laws that make it HARD to vote.
We absolutely KNOW as I noted above that people – even poor, poorly educated people make far better choices – when there is a COST to those choices.
I do not want to make voting easier – I want it to be HARDER.
If I could I would only allow in person voting on election day and schedule a massive hurricane covering the entire country on election day.
I also favor the “starship troopers” model – you can only vote if you served in the military.
Again my point is we absolutely positively KNOW that everyone makes significantly better decisions – when their choices come with Clear costs.
To the greatest extent possible I would make voting as much like the free market as possible
You want a hamburger – you have to come up with a dollar.
In the real world – everything comes with a cost – sometimes that is clear others it is hidden.
We make worse choices when we think we are not going to have to pay for those choices.
Attributable to the orchestrated dumbing down of our educational institutions, from preK to high school and colleges. A dumbed down population is much easier to control with division and identity politics.
Give us your poor, your weak, your stupid, your perverse and we will make Democrats out of them.
Reminder Democrats
are Pro illegals, criminals, chopping off kids sex organs, homelessness, debt, failure
are Against America!
Only BAD people vote for Democrats
Pretty stupid and ignorant comment for 6:42AM. But stupid has no time frame eh?
Democrats have nothing….just name calling, cheating and hate!