The current recount in Alaska is another example of a Judge changing the clear meaning of the law to what he believes it should say. In the contest for Senator, Lisa Murkowski conducted a write-in campaign. There is a recount of the votes going on with the judicial instructions that a vote shall be counted if the voter's intent can be determined.

The actual state statue says:

(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate's name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.

(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.

(12)(b) 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.

The requirement is clear - the oval must be filled in and the candidates name must be written in as it appears on the write-in declaration. No exceptions.

I have no preference between Miller and Murkowski, however I do have a clear preference for adherence to the law, not what a judge thinks it should be.

As pointed out, the phrase, separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution. Using it to support court decisions is the equivalent of allowing a vote in Alaska written in as Mussolini to count for Murkowski, after all, they both begin with M and end with i - wouldn't that be a clear indication of intent?