I watched about 2/3 of this argument before I lost the audio connection. My sense is that the Justices were unlikely to rule for Miller, but it is not clear to me whether they will reach the merits of some of these issue or avoid them by saying that they put them off now and rule on them only if they come up in a future recount. Assuming there is no problem with issuing advisory opinions, it would seem to make sense to resolve at least the major questions of statutory interpretation now, because that would potentially moot or make very important any potential recount after certification.
I expect that if the court reaches the merits it will side with the state and say that the state can have a system to count minor misspellings. I don’t know if they will say anything about the ballots in which voters wrote in for Murkowski but did not fill in the oval as directed.
You can read my live blog entries as I wrote them below the fold.

Watch live here.
Some live blogging (keep refreshing for updates):
Mr. Morley, Miller’s attorney is arguing that the voter’s intent is irrelevant if the voter has misspelled the candidate’s name.
At least two justices now do not seem to be buying the idea of strict construction of the Alaska statute.
A Justice questions what construing the statute as “mandatory” means in this context, with the implication that minor misspellings should count.
Justice Fabe says that even ruling in Miller’s favor would not make a difference, because there are not enough votes here to make a difference to the outcome. Morley says they may challenge more ballots after a recount. This leads Justice Winfree to ask why such claims would not be raised in any recount challenge. Morley points to the federal court order.
(By the way, I’m identifying the Justices using this.)
Justice Cristen seems skeptical of Morley’s arguments that there were two standards used—one for a machine-count.
Justice Fabe comes back to question whether there are enough ballots at issue given the challenges to change the election results.
Justices Winfree and Crhisten seem quite skeptical of the second argument, on machine recounts. Justice Winfree says this would require a recount in every election.
Morley will reserve the rest of his time for rebuttal. He did not go to any of his other administrative law issues.
Scott Kendall is now up for Murkowski. Kendall: Miller loses on the math. That’s not subjective. Case should be over.
Justice Winfree is now being tough on Kendall. Asks how to know whether case is moot if court agrees with Miller’s statutory interpretation argument. The Justice complains that the briefs do not set forth the numbers in the briefs.
Justice Fabe starts going through the math. Says that court must take a peek at how the issues come out to decide if issues could make a difference.
Discussion of the write-in votes where there was no oval. Lots of discussion of what is properly in the record before the Court.
Kendall says that minor misspellings have been counted by the Division of Elections since 1998, and Miller did not complain about this standard before the election. He also says that the Alaska Supreme Court has always tried to follow voter intent.
Discussion of meaning of “as appears.” Court is letting Kendall speak now without interruption.
Discussion of whether Murkowski’s ballots without the oval filled in should not be counted.
Kendall seems to be going over his time.
Kendall: Discussion of “Lisa M.” ballots. Prior to the election, the director of elections said that “Lisa M.” ballots would probably be counted. Though retracted, people relied on that.
Justice Winfree again asks about the procedural posture, and why this issue is up now, before any recount.
Kendall: “Lisa M. Lackey” was a radio stunt with no campaign.
Joanne Grace is now up for the state.
Grace: Miller wants to win on a technicality. Does not care about voter intent. This is inconsistent with how Alaska elections are decided.
Miller is confusing strict construction and strict compliance.
Justice Cristen throws a softball: under Miller’s interpretation, wouldn’t the vote have to say “Murkowski, Lisa,” as it was written on the candidate form. “Lisa Murkowski” is not how it appears on the declaration of candidacy, yet Mr. Miller would accept it. (This is a pretty strong argument against Miller’s push for the meaning of “as it appears”).
Really nefarious: Justice Winfree asks if it would have been okay for someone else to come in and say they wanted their name to be counted as a vote for “Lisa Murkowski.” Grace says they worried that would happen. (Wait for the next election!)
It strikes me that Grace is doing very well, arguing that Miller’s interpretation is unduly strict and inconsistent with how Alaska deals with its elections, and the court avoid disenfranchisement.
Discussion of the Alaska Supreme Court’s application of democracy canon (though Grace does not use that terminology).
Darn, I’ve lost my video connection.
Looks like that will end my live blogging. I cannot connect back to hear the rest of the argument.