So, Here's How Murky Would Do It

Gabe has done what was beneath me (star blogger syndrome, etc.) and read the relevant law.

(1) Win a primary. <--Murkowski can't do it this way if Miller wins.

(2) File a no-party petition. <--Murkowski can't do it this way, she missed the deadline.

(3) Replace a primary winner by party petition.

It's this last one that they may be thinking of. By party petition 48 or more days before the general election, a candidate may be placed on the general election ballot if the primary winner dies, withdraws, resigns, or becomes diqualified.

Presumably AIP has a candidate who won yesterday. She could replace that candidate if AIP files a party petition 48 or more days prior to the general election. It is ridiculously easy to file such a petition. It simply must be signed by the party's state chairperson or by two members of the party's central committee.

I'm assuming there's still time to do this? Is it more than 48 days from Nov. 2? I was told there would be no math.

So, there you go. More: Gabe's not sure that AIP actually participated in the primary, so it's not clear if they have a candidate that could be replaced this way... however, I assume (assume) there's some minor party out there, the Greens, Reform, whoever, who did.

Ass-ume.

Casey Kasem just put out this (Content Warning) long-distance dedication to Lisa Murkowski.

More: Gabe's looking at who had primaries -- the Libertarians?

Also, of course, she could ask the Democrats to run as their candidate -- and who knows, she's almost one now; who knows.

From Larry Sabato, Clarification: Yes those 8000 outstanding ballots are not just R ballots, but a mix of both D and R, so let's say, tops, 6000 are R's. She'd have to win 4000-2000, or 2:1, to pick up 2000 votes from the absentees.

Of course, we now understand she doesn't care at all about Republican votes....

More Gabe: By his reading, you only get on the ballot by those three means -- primary win, independent filing, replacing existing candidate.

He says that a minor-party cannot just put someone up by caucus. (Although I have to say this strikes me as odd.)

But if his reading is right (and he is a lawyer), then Murky can only replace a candidate who in turn had previously won a primary -- and only the Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans held primaries.

So one of those three, and I don't think Miller will agree to it.

Murky: It's "Premature" To Discuss My Already-Decided End-Run Around The People's Decision: And this article seems to indicate it's the Libertarian candidate's ballot-slot she's got her eye on.

As Gabe suggested.

Or the Dems... As I suggested. Speculation: Hey, why shouldn't the Democrats dump their sure-loser candidate in favor of the pro-choice, big government Murky?

So right now she's talking with the Libertarians and Democrats. On the phone with the Libertarians, she's suddenly realizing she's been in favor of gay marriage and drug legalization all her life (no one had informed her of her position previously), and with the Democrats she's realizing... um, that instead of voting with them 43% of the time it wouldn't be all that much to vote with them 73% of the time.

Original Reportage! But a little late. Drew wrote to the AIP about this possibility, and they wrote back:

The chairwoman of AIP responded...

Senator Murkowski is a registered Republican, not AIP. She therefore cannot be a candidate for this Party...we are not a "rent-a-party" for the Republicans. There is NO possibility regarding her "running" as Alaskan Independence Party candidate.

But we know it can't be AIP based on Gabe's legal opinion, so... not as timely as it could have been.

posted by Ace at 04:58 PM

| Access Comments