Supreme Court says no signature needed on absentee ballots - Must Read Alaska
Connect with:
Sunday, October 25, 2020
HomePoliticsSupreme Court says no signature needed on absentee ballots

Supreme Court says no signature needed on absentee ballots

AFPAK-0003-PC-AK-DSN

Using judicial power to make new laws for Alaskans, the Alaska Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that says Alaskans don’t need a witness signature on their absentee ballots this year.

The next opportunity the courts will have to show their willingness to be activist is later this week, when a court case from the Alaska Center [for the Environment] is suing to make sure that even if a voter fills out an absentee ballot wrong (without a signature or date of birth, etc) it can still be counted. That case will be heard at 9 am Thursday in Superior Court.

The Monday Supreme Court decision came after an hour of court arguments. Although statutes clearly state that each ballot needs a witness, the court has effectively invalidated Alaska law because it wanted to.

The rationale is that there are so many Alaskans voting absentee this year that there may be a lot more rejected ballots, if the voters don’t follow through and get the witness. In other words, it’s a numbers game — the Supreme Court decided in advance that there will be a problem getting witnesses for too many people.

More than 115,000 Alaskans have requested absentee ballots, and the State says nearly 14,000 have already been voted and returned.

With the court having thrown out the witness requirement, will it now also throw out other requirements that ballots be filled out properly?

Alaskans are getting a lesson in just how liberal and activist its judges will go to throw out election integrity because of their better judgment.

Donations Welcome

Share

Written by

Suzanne Downing had careers in business and journalism before serving as the Director of Faith and Community-based Initiatives for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and returning to Alaska to serve as speechwriter for Gov. Sean Parnell. Born on the Oregon coast, she moved to Alaska in 1969.

Latest comments

  • My understanding is that this requirement is temporarily suspended due to the coronavirus and not meant to be permanent. There seems to be no connection between this and any other reason to reject a ballot. For instance, if a ballot is not properly signed or post marked, it will be rejected, witnessed or not, and, of course, witnessed ballots will still be accepted if they meet all the other rules.

    • The Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany was also a temporary enactment. And that turned out so well for everyone.

    • Greg R. Is a voice of reason and sanity.

    • Definitely not permanent.

      Just long enough to steal from Trump.

      • This will not steal any votes from Donald J. Trump. He will win Alaska in a cake walk.

    • My understanding also.

    • Some coincidences are too unlikely to be believed over competing explanations. Considering the arbitrary social distancing rules that are being enforced– you cannot garner in a crowd if you are gathering fire a religious service, but you can if you are burning a gas station, and masks have to be worn at all times unless you make the rules–I doubt any judge’s conviction that COVID-19 is an actual concern for this election. However, I find it coincidental that a ruling is made to lessen the security during the election year in which Donald Trump is up for reelection, and the Democrats only need to turn 4 seats for Senate dominance. This is a partisan ruling, and it is disgusting.

    • Corrupt judges legislating from the bench! Vote no during the general election.

  • This decision is counter to a recent US Supreme Court decision allowing South Carolina to require a witness signature on absentee ballots.

  • The Sweet and Sour Sniffles sure do have wide ranging symptoms beyond politicians grabbing power where there are none to be had.

    Or are these Justices politicians?

  • The only question they should consider as the Supreme Court is whether the witness requirement is constitutional or not.

    • Exactly. That is why I never vote them to be retained.

  • The justices aren’t supposed to make new law. They’re just supposed to determine what the current law means.

  • 9th Circuit stopped this same thing in AZ. This needs to be appealed there immediately.

  • The ruling clearly shows corrupt judges making up laws they agree with without following the law as written.

  • Corrupt court creating ruling opposite of clearly written law, Remove all who voted for this

  • Opposite of standing written law!!! Corrupt Judges who voted for this need to be removed NOW!!!

  • Justice Susan Carney had done nothing to warrant a non-retention vote. Her rulings and decisions are within the bounds of constitutional and statutory interpretation.

    • A judge is obligated to apply the law as it is written and not as she wishes it would be. Judges are supposed to apply the law (and nothing else) equally, every time, not make it up on a sliding scale based on how they feel at the time.

      Vote NO on retaining Justice Susan Carney and Superior Court Judge Danya R. “Dani” Crosby, Third Judicial District. Judge Crosby issued the ruling that the “supreme” court affirmed in the absentee ballot case.

      Also, vote NO on retaining Judge Andrew Guidi, another Superior Court judge who can’t seem to either understand the law or apply it without interjecting his personal emotions.

  • Vote NO for each and every one of the judges supporting this crap. They do not deserve to be retained if they think this is supporting the intent of the law.

    Whether this is a COVID related measure, or one meant to be permanent is irrelevant. There is no reason why you cannot have your signature on the application witnessed. And, I do not care how dangerous the virus is, there is no excuse whatsoever for not signing, or mailing an absentee ballot on time.

  • On your ballot, whenever it asks you to retain a judge, say “no”.
    “Judge? say no”

  • Needs an updated picture of the justices.

    • Correct, Joe. Stowers is gone.

  • One of the justices, Susan Carney, is up for retention election in November. If Alaskan voters are not happy with her decisions they can express their disapproval then.

  • All the more reason to vote no on retention of Susan Carney in Nov.

  • Suzanne is this ruling effectively legislating from the bench?

  • Remember MRAK’s February 25 article: “Justice Bolger’s neutrality is in question, so he needs to sit this one out”?
    .
    What, everybody kissed and made up over that one?
    .
    If you were a vengeful chief justice obssessed with deposing a duly elected governor, why not “reimagine” election law and corrupt Alaska’s balloting system in a way that would make it much easier to recall Governor Dunleavy?
    .
    Who’s going to stop you?

  • The Alaska Supremes had themselves quite a run during this election season by mucking around rewriting election law on the fly, reprising what they did with the Walker – Mallott Unity Ticket in 2014, and chucking out of hand the notion that a ballot initiative could only do a single thing by approving Prop 2. Apparently a rewrite of all state election law on the fly is “one thing.”

    If these guys keep this up, they will continue to make an ironclad case for a constitutional convention in 2022, where we can put these black robed politicians up for election on a regular basis. Cheers –

  • If we had a non-political DOJ & FBI perhaps we would see a real investigation of the corrupt judiciary system in Alaska. No nation can survive this kind of systematic rot for long.

  • What gives the Alaska Supreme Court the authority to make this opinion? Is this a constitutional issue? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to change currents laws? If the mandate is unconstitutional, then why is this just “temporary”? Because of the pandemic….really??? These judges need to reevaluate their power and authority.

  • At first I thought this was a plot by the liberal Alaska Supreme Court to follow suit with liberal states pulling ballot shenanigans to ensure Biden is elected President. But then I realized how wrong I was when I found out Trump is actually running unopposed!! According to Biden’s own Alzheimer jumbled speech a few days ago, Biden thinks he is running for Senate, not President. But now Harris thinks SHE is running for President. And don’t get me started on crazy Nancy Pelosi. She is trying to pass a law to take them ALL out in hopes crazy Nancy herself can become President. The only thing crazier would be if somehow the Democrat Anchorage Mayor resigned because he was exposed as being a pervert. These Democrats are funny.. Strange, but funny.

leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: