The state, pointing to case law, used discretion in determining voter intent and allowed for ballots with misspellings to be counted toward Murkowski's tally. The high court determined voter intent is "paramount."
Beistline said Miller's technical arguments shouldn't be read as "frivolous, for it's easy to understand his view" on the reading of the law. But he said it's just as easy to accept the state Supreme Court's reading.
"What we have before us is a poorly drafted state statute," he wrote.
Beistline also said he could not find the methods used by the state in counting write-in ballots to be "unreasonable."
"The very nature of a 'write-in' vote presupposes a requirement that someone will have to read the handwriting and determine for whom the vote was cast," he wrote.