COLEMAN CAMPAIGN TRIES TO DISENFRANCHISE MINNESOTANS
Another Coleman Lawsuit Makes It Clear: Norm Coleman Doesn’t Want All The Votes To Be Counted
__________________________________ Saint Paul [11/08/08] - In a shameful effort to deprive Minnesota voters of their civil rights, the Coleman campaign today went to court in an attempt to block 32 absentee ballots from being counted. Communications Director Andy Barr:
“Our position is simple: Count every vote fairly. Ever since the routine process of canvassing to ensure that every vote is counted began, the Coleman campaign has been attempting to obstruct it. And, in typical fashion, they have now gone to court to shut down the count. This stealth attack on an early Saturday morning is a disgusting attempt to disenfranchise voters who did nothing wrong, and we will fight hard on behalf of Minnesotans who deserve to have their voices heard.”
Anyone surprised? These people are shameless.
UPDATE:
FRANKEN CAMPAIGN TO DISCUSS COLEMAN’S SATURDAY SNEAK ATTACK TO STOP COUNTING OF BALLOTS
Suit In Ramsey District Court Dismissed
____________________________________________________________
Saint Paul [11/08/08]
WHAT: News conference
WHO: Andy Barr, Communications Director
WHEN: Today, Saturday, November 8 at 1:00 pm
WHERE: Al Franken for Senate HQ
(2575 University Ave. W., St. Paul)
I now have a copy of the injunction. It appears that there are some legal ballots that were legally received on election day but for some reason or another not counted initially on election day. Legal ballots should be counted before the results are certified. Team Coleman is trying to cast doubt about the legality of the ballots and cast doubt about the normal process of counting this election. From what I understand, the district court has already dismissed this stunt by Coleman.
Every vote should be counted fairly.
If there is a light tick mark next to (but not in) the Franken circle on a ballot where the top line vote went to Obama, should that count?
My whole point is that they need to be very conservative on this recount. An election official should not try to interpret the intent of a voter.
Pretty OT, Dan. This thread is about a lawsuit to prevent the initial counting of absentee ballots. I agree with your statement on intent, however OT it is.
Is there a link to information on the 32 absentee ballots?
Secretly, Coleman has to be pretty worried. This is because I believe most of the errors occurred in the big cities, which would seem to favor Al. It will be interesting to see how far Coleman is willing to go in attempts to obstruct the recount. This will perhaps reveal more about Coleman than we already know at this point, and it may not be a very pretty picture. It’s possible that even if he wins, he will have made himself a laughingstock for the next 6 years based on what he does in the next month. His best possible course during this period might be to remain totally quiet and to instruct his staff to do so also.
John, even if Coleman wins, he won’t make it six years. If there’s anything this election cycle demonstrated, it’s how corrupt Coinman is; and it’s also demonstrated how cheaply Coinman can be bought.
Norm Coinman, R=Corrupt, has a reservation at ClubFed in his future.
I believe these were absentee ballots received at the county courthouse by election day but not forwarded to the precinct on time.
Can anyone confirm?
Team Franken Press conference at 1:00. Hints Lawsuit dismissed:
- - -
FRANKEN CAMPAIGN TO DISCUSS COLEMAN’S SATURDAY SNEAK ATTACK TO STOP COUNTING OF BALLOTS
Suit In Ramsey District Court Dismissed
____________________________________________________________
Saint Paul [11/08/08]
WHAT: News conference
at 1:00 pm
WHO: Andy Barr, Communications Director
WHEN: Today (Saturday, November
WHERE: Al Franken for Senate HQ
(2575 University Ave. W., St. Paul)
The Franken thieves are trying everything outside the law to game the system. The latest involves new ballots suddenly appearing from a heavily Democratic precinct. These ballots have been unsecure since the election, yet the Franken Campaign is demanding they be stuffed into the ballot box, attempting to change a vote count that was already finished.
Angry Al - a true example of a sleazebag.
Why is Team Franken against securing ballots?
Given the incendiary press releases about the recount by Team Coleman and their open accusations of illegal conduct, etc., I have the following two questions:
1) Can you believe Coleman ran a campaign that claimed to be about bipartisanship and improving the “negative tone” in Washington?
2) Can you believe that anyone actually believed him when he said it?
Why is Team Coleman afraid of the recount?
As I understand it, the objection to these ballots is that they were just “found” last night and the chain of custody cannot be guaranteed.
Counting votes is one thing, producing them after the fact is another matter entirely.
IMO Franken needs to tread very lightly here. There have already been two incidents that raise eyebrows but are within the realm of credulity but this one goes beyond what reasonable people are going to allow.
If you read the PDF it say the temporary restraining order had been GRANTED. That’s not dismissed.
Matt, that’s just a Proposed Order they’re hoping the judge will sign. Note that it’s not signed. It does not in any way indicate the TRO has been granted. Basically every motion filed in Minnesota courts is filed along with an unsigned proposed order.
Did you guys see the Kos links about this? A great diary too. This is beyond shameless.
One is on the mainpage, here is the other one.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/8/13817/5020/454/657547
I almost feel sorry for you fools who support this man, but then I am sure there was a McCain Palin vote above it. You guys deserve what you get. Coleman takes a perp walk, within 2 years, conservative estimate.
Absentee ballots weren’t “found” just yesterday but were probably “spoiled” on election night and returned to the city election supervisor for validation and processing. Those take time. Each ballot that doesn’t come with a new voter registration form has to match the voter rolls in that specific precinct. If a ballot doesn’t match the rolls because it was incorrectly filed or sent to the wrong precinct, it isn’t processed on election day but is returned to the city. Those need to be individually checked, validated as to which precinct the voter lives in, matched to the voter rolls, marked in the rolls to verify that someone didn’t vote twice and then processed. Our precinct alone had 2 “spoiled” ballots out of 2,000 votes. With 4,138 precincts, that’s a lot of votes that could be out there yet.
DantheMan, the law in Minnesota says that they are supposed to determine the intent of the voter when doing the manual recount. Are you actually suggesting that they ignore the law?
Or are you suggesting that they only interpret it in a way that you like?
Fair to say, Josh, and if you and I looked at 10 questionable ballots, we would probably have different opinions of “intent”.
It is highly, highly subjective when you start talking about intent. Especially when the department who is following this subjective procedure is aligned with one of the political parties with skin in the game.
Do we assume that somone who voted for Obama probably meant to vote for Franken, unless the Coleman oval is firmly shaded? I think many independents who vote on a candidate-by-candidate basis would be deeply offended if we started making assumptions like that.
It is just very, very, very subjective. Nobody should be critical of either sides, Coleman and Franken, for hiring attorneys to protect their interests in the recount. That kind of healthy tension will make the process transparent and more objective.
The question of “intent” is not totally abstract. “Intent” is a buzzword that people perceive as negative, but the Star Tribune has a PDF showing concrete examples of ballots that marked in ways that the computer would not record, but where intent is clear.
http://www.startribune.com/newsgraphics/34067234.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUoaEaD_ec7PaP3iUiacyKUU
Dan, do you think the intent is clear in these examples or is it, in your mind, “very, very, very subjective” and impossible to determine who was supposed to receive the vote?
Enjoy this discussion of divining voter intent on optically scanned ballots while it lasts - with all the No Child Left Behind testing, filling in ovals is one thing future generations will be great at.
Seriously, those of us in education who spend a lot of time figuring out what people mean on tests know that there are lots of ways to make your intent clear that screw up scanned sheets. There are several very common ways to mismark a scanned ballot (x’s, checks, circles, stray marks, etc.) and that’s what I expect we’ll be seeing here. For those with Florida on the brain, know that ink is a lot easier to interpret than holes. I think we’ll be surprised at how not subjective most of these decisions will be.
So this was dismissed by the judge because it wasn’t in her juridiction. Are Normy’s lawyers as stupid as he is?
The Train - great link. I hadn’t seen that. That makes more sense.
Stray marks are the ones I get most concerned about. They could mean any number of things.
As long as the rule is that the rest of the ballot should have no bearing on how you interpret a mark, I think we’re OK. For example, while Obama won MInnesota by 10 pts., Franken is neck and neck w/ Coleman in the high 40’s. Clearly, MInnesotans are OK voting for the combination ticket Obama / Coleman, just like they obviously voted Obama / Paulsen in many cases. I hope no inference is made on the voters intent based on the up-ticket race.
But these rules are to be argued when we’re not in the middle of a recount, but when all is calm. I guess my main point is that with the “interpretation of intent” and so much at stake, I can’t blame Franken or Coleman for having a team of lawyers to watch this.
Dan, in all likelihood, 99% of these problematic ballots will show an obvious intent (for anyone with IQ > room temperature). For any ballot where the voter’s intent is not obvious, a representative of either party can dispute the ballot, in which case it will be reviewed by a panel of officials, including an elected judge. Do you honestly believe that a group of people, whose career is to ensure fair elections, is going to falsely extrapolate voter intent for the senate race from separate voting decisions on the same ballot? Let’s make the ridiculous assumption that such a panel does exist. Given that the process is public and transparent, do you think they would get away with it?
You’re echoing the dumbest of right-wing rhetoric to come out of the 2000 Florida recount.
You say the process is public and transparent, but how can it be public and transparent when the votes being counted are seemingly coming from nowhere (i.e. backseats of cars days later). We have no idea what has happened to these ballots between then and now. We have no idea how they originated or how they came to be in the officials car. Save us the histrionics regarding right-wing rhetoric, you know, deep down inside, where the evil monkey fears to tread, you find this just as wrong, but you also have that feeling that 31 out of 32 of these ballots will be for Franken (amazingly) and you want that on your side.
As an aside, looks like Coleman is now ahead by only 221 votes.
The statute and recount guide are both rather specific about how intent is defined and determined, complete with many concrete examples. It is hardly abstract or nebulous and, if either side’s attorney feels that intent is improperly determined, they may challenge the ballot. If the judge disagrees with the challenge and refuses to withdraw the ballot, it is sent on to the BIPARTISAN canvassing board.
This process seems just about as thorough, inclusive, and transparent as it could be. The press, each side’s representatives, officials, etc., are all in attendance. I don’t know that a mass-scale process could be controlled any better and, frankly, I find it unfortunate that a sitting U.S. Senator would feel so free to question the motives of election officials who have shown nothing that suggests corruption. If the vote counts don’t match up, investigate and prove it. But smearing non-partisan officials in the press instead of conducting due diligence is hardly behavior one expects from a United States Senator. It shows weakness.
He may win the election but as far as I’m concerned, the man is a total loser. An embarrassment and a loser.
Votes in other races will not be considered in determining voter intent in the senate race. We are talking about checks and Xs in the circle or next to the circle. There isn’t going to be much, if any, subjectivity involved. Take a look at this link:
http://www.startribune.com/newsgraphics/34067234.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUoaEaD_ec7PaP3iUiacyKUU
Norm Coleman deserves some kind of award for making such an incredibly dumb statement about the forthcoming recount in Minnesota. When he was ahead by 700+ votes, he encouraged Franken to concede, and he also said that the $86,000 cost of the recount was an undue burden on the taxpayers. Now it looks like he’s going to fall behind in the count, and I guarantee that he’ll be the biggest advocate for a recount the nation has ever seen. I hope the media crucifies him on this one….
Does anyone have a copy of Gearin’s actual order, as opposed the the proposed order? I am curious as to what the jurisdictional problem was.
Edit: I thought this was a ripeness issue, but it’s a defective complaint because they aren’t following the process as required by statute…which is laid out in the judge’s order (link to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=NewsItemDisplay&item=43582)
Here is a link to the order…
http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=NewsItemDisplay&item=43582
Thanks for the link, Will.
As an absentee Hennepin County voter (work/travel, I never seem to be in the State on election day) I am thankful his ploy didnt work, today.. I expect to see more attempts to stop the counting next week and all through the recount.
Norm is good at one tactic that republicans in general excel at. Taking those failings of themselves, things they are guilty of, and projecting it onto their opponent. The more I see of this sort of tactic on Norm’s behalf, the more convinced I am that they have something to hide, that a full and honest recount will uncover. Time will tell, and I hope we do find out who the voters of Minnesota actually elected and these tactics continue to fall flat.
There is one thing that Norm could do to earn back the respect of Minnesotans, and that would be to acknowledge that he will be so tied up in ethics hearings and legal problems he will not be able to fully and completely represent the citizens of MN in the Senate, and concede, sparing MN the cost of the recount and being left unrepresented. (Like that will ever happen) although I think Norm has not represented me these past 6 years anyway, rather only himself and his political ambitions.
“There is one thing that Norm could do to earn back the respect of Minnesotans, and that would be to acknowledge that he will be so tied up in ethics hearings and legal problems he will not be able to fully and completely represent the citizens of MN in the Senate, and concede, sparing MN the cost of the recount and being left unrepresented”
But then wouldn’t he be assuming that Franken was the 2nd choice for Senator of all those who voted for Norm? That would be a very flawed assumption. My 1st choice was Norm. My 2nd would be Barkley. My 3rd would be some last minute right of center replacement for Norm. My 4th would be to have Pawlenty appoint someone. My 5th choice would be to leave the set open until we can have a special election. My 6th would be Al Franken.
“But then wouldn’t he be assuming that Franken was the 2nd choice for Senator of all those who voted for Norm?”
No. It would assume only fact. Franken got a million more votes than Barkley.
How about we let T-Paw appoint a new Senator if that ever needs to occur.
Too much to expect for Coleman to do the right thing, eh?
It’s not about Coleman, it is about the 47.x percent of voters who supported sending the candidate who campaigned as a moderate Republican back to the senate.
If Coleman loses the recount, it is a non-issue.
If he maintains his win, then democracy would be violated by having him step down and sending the candidate that a plurality of Minnesotans didn’t want to the Senate.
Special election: T-Paw vs. Franken. That one shouldn’t require a recount
Mr. Landry, your coverage of this election has been superb, and you are not disappointing with your recount coverage. In fact, you make everyone else look apathetic. Thank you for being my go-to source for post-election senate info. Much love, Me
To whomever lovingly refers to me as “Pubert” (and don’t think I mind the company of the Addams):
Will seems to have clarified for me how uninformed you are about the public nature of the recount process. But just as transparent as the recount will be, so too is Norm Coleman’s attempts to disrupt the process. You are deluded if you believe that fluctuations of the vote count since Nov 4th are out of the ordinary - it’s happened in many elections past - but more importantly, with the pending recount, it doesn’t make a lick of difference to the end result. When the recount starts, every ballot cast will be reexamined by human observers. The bogus claims from the Coleman camp about illegal ballots (those of which went to court were quickly thrown out) is part of an attempt to delegitimize the recount before it has begun. The simple and obvious fact is that Coleman, as always, is playing by the Rove playbook. He will do anything necessary to maintain power, whether it means disenfranchising voters or disrupting the entire democratic process with spurious litigation.
The same cannot be said for Al Franken, who so far has shown class and poise.
“The same cannot be said for Al Franken, who so far has shown class and poise.”
That is because Franken has everything to gain from as much changing in the recount as possible.
“That is because Franken has everything to gain from as much changing in the recount as possible.”
Ergo he’s being respectful of the process? Perhaps what you really mean to say is that Coleman has everything to lose from the legally mandated recount, which is motive but not excuse for his shameful actions.
It is about Coleman, Dan. As far as Coleman is concerned, it is COMPLETELY about Coleman.
I’m interested to hear your perspective.
If Franken pulls ahead will Coleman honor his statement of 11/05? Will he step down for the sake of unity, or will he insert the lubricious finger of litigation to circumvent the will of the voters?
Given an opportunity of siding with the angels or with our baser instincts… What would Norm do? Well if you look at past performance, such as hiding $75,000 of “donor” money with his wife, accepting free or at least very inexpensive accommodations from political organizations he hires, and clothing himself at the expense of his Senatorial ethics, well I have a guess… Even Republicans know that the only person Norm is looking out for is Norm. They have to be used to that by now with all he has done off the Republican Reservation since 2006.
Is litigiousness an admirable trait, DtM?
Listen - we all deserve to have confidence that our vote was counted, and we all deserve to have confidence that whoever wins wins because the exact number of accurate and valid ballots were counted.
As far as the legal mumbo jumbo behind the scenes, I’ll shut my yapper because I’m not a lawyer nor a judge and I can’t claim to have any expertise in the area.
If an honest and accurate recount favors Al Franken, then I will be the first to agree that he is the rightful winner. I’ll be his harshest critic because I don’t think he is capable of working with the other party, but I want this election to be won fair and square.
DtM
So you are going on record as saying that Coleman should keep his word, and concede if Al pulls ahead either before, or after the recount?
Sure. If, after the recount, Franken is ahead and all 3rd parties and the public have confidence that the recount is accurate, Norm should absolutely concede.