« MY FINAL NARN “THE FINAL WORD” TODAY FROM 3-5 P.M. | Home | COLEMAN RECOUNT UPDATE: “COLEMAN CAMPAIGN TO ASK THAT ALL 12,000 REJECTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS BE REVIEWED FOR POTENTIAL COUNTING” »
MUST READ FROM THE WSJ: “THE MINNESOTA RECOUNT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | January 19, 2009
“You would think people would learn. The recount in the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken for a seat in the U.S. Senate isn’t just embarrassing. It is unconstitutional.
This is Florida 2000 all over again, but with colder weather. Like that fiasco, Minnesota’s muck of a process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the controlling Supreme Court decision is none other than Bush v. Gore.” Source: Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2009
Click here for the complete op-ed.
###
“The Constitution’s answer is a do-over. The 17th Amendment provides: ‘When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.’
In a sense, a vacancy has already ‘happened.’ The U.S. Senate convened on Jan. 6 with only one senator from Minnesota. Still, the seat is perhaps not “vacant,” just unfilled. But if the contest proceeding does not produce a clear winner that passes constitutional muster, a special election — and a temporary appointment by Gov. Tim Pawlenty — may be the only answer.
For now, the only thing certain is that the present ‘certified’ result — which is that Mr. Franken won by 225 votes out of more than 2.9 million cast — is an obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution.” Source: Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2009
Click here for the complete op-ed.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 66 Comments »
66 Responses to “MUST READ FROM THE WSJ: “THE MINNESOTA RECOUNT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:35 AM
ROFLMAO!!!
Michael, from your link:
Well, Norm answered that one, way back last November!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZppOhCSRyFw
That was then; this is now; and ol’ Smokescreen appears to be terrified at the prospects of life without a government paycheck.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Tommy here is a youtube video of you not paying for your gas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU5pUIjDqI4
Tommy, what does ROFLMOA mean? Rolling On Floor Licking Madia’s ___ ___?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Franken’s worst nightmare: Go all the way to the Supreme Court with the final decision to require a re-vote.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I can’t believe how sore of losers Team Coleman is — Minnesota has had the most transparent and open recount process ever… they’ll do whatever they can to stall the process or to get people to distrust it for power. Pathetic.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:25 AM
HAHA… “Indeed, the controlling Supreme Court decision is none other than Bush v. Gore.†” Jesus, the WSJ has fallen off a cliff when it comes to credibility and intellectualism. Did their fact checkers not realize that Bush v. Gore was in fact limited to its own facts? It cannot be precedent for anything.
And what monkey is doing their XVII amendment analysis?
It’s an “obvious embarrassment to the constitution” that someone was certified with a 225 vote lead as the winner? How again is that?
Murdoch has completely dismantled the WSJ. It’s painful to watch.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Errand, how could votes that never existed, be recounted in a “most transparent and open recount process”
Didn’t the pet stores open at 10:00. Shouldn’t you be standing in cat-toy isle with your pants down?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Yes, you are right, Aaron, this has been a fairly transparent recount process. That is how we know, and the Coleman and Franken campaigns know, that a disproportionate number of Franken votes were double-counted, and that different precincts used unequal criteria when making the decisions on which votes to count and which to discard. It is the transparency that shows how unfair the certified totals are, and it is the transparency that shows us that Norm Coleman will eventually be declared the winner and re-elected Senator.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Again, I challenge one of you tools to give a single example where there is a known ballot being double counted.
I find it amazing that you people all are convinced of this fact and yet Coleman has yet to be capable of pointing to a single example.
Then, and only then, I’d like you to tell me how it matters since none of you clowns have been able to show that anywhere near 225 votes were double counted. Let alone, 225 that were double counted for Franken,
January 19th, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Notably, Coleman’s only chance to overtake Franken (he seems to concede) is that he gets the absentee ballots counted that he’s selected from the stack of rejected ballots.
Let’s put aside the fact that he originally wanted no rejected absentee ballots counted and let’s talk about his little problem that all of these ballots have been reviewed now TWICE by independent election officials and concluded that all but one were, in fact, improperly rejected.
It’s no wonder Team Coleman is in full “do-over” mode.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:06 AM
PD, from that opinion piece:
But as matters stand now, the Minnesota recount is a legal train wreck.
And:
The different treatment makes the results not only unreliable (and suspicious)
It is not surprising that – since this guy didn’t get the election results he wanted – he’s more than willing to toss T-Paw appointed Judges under the bus.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:34 AM
I have to agree with what Aaron said: Minnesota has had the most transparent and open recount process ever.
And the results?
The “recount” in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.
Yes, Aaron…
Pathetic.
The Democrats got the right to bring the Florida election to the Supreme Court.
Minnesota Republicans should and will get the same right.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:40 AM
“The Democrats got the right to bring the Florida election to the Supreme Court. Minnesota Republicans should and will get the same right.”
You do realize that Bush and the Republicans brought the issue to the Supreme Court not Gore, right?
January 19th, 2009 at 12:01 PM
And they don’t realize that Bush v. Gore is not – NOT – precendent setting.
From a “source” rightwingnuts can “trust” – Brit Hume and Faux News:
rest of story, here: Faux News
January 19th, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Yes. Finally.
Gore v. Bush, according to the decisions itself, does not have precedential value. The fact that the author did not bother to discuss that while citing the case made the piece not just disingenuous but dishonest.
The equal protection arguments presented in Gore v. Bush, if accepted on their, would probably render invalid just about every election conducted since the beginning of the Republic.
Concerning the possibility of a electoral do over. If we take the professor at his word, he is worried that ballots may be counted accoreing to different standards. His solution? Not to count them at all. To discard the millions of votes cast November. I am much more comfortable submitting my vote to different standards of counting than having it thrown out altogether.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:41 PM
“”The “recount†in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.”"
Totally debunked! – Only one precinct had more votes than voters, Maplewood 06, and that was because the election judge forgot to add the Absentee voters to the rolls. Once that happened, everything reconciled.
See, the Right is trying to twist more votes in the recount than votes on election day, in to more votes than voters. And of course there will be more votes during the recount, as misread or improperly marked ballots that the machine could not see are hand counted.
I suspect this all ends on Monday, when Franken’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the Coleman Camp is forced to turn tail.
I could be wrong though. Many of us have been begging for anyone to provide a list of these 25 precincts, but no one has been able to produce it. They clutch a factually inaccurate editorial from some east cost arm of the GOP.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Flash, You could very well be wrong. Please povide a source for your claim that theverything reconciled.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Pete f –
No, you provide evidence. Flash has provided his over and over, and backed it up with facts. You’re the one alleging problems, it’s your responsibility to prove such problems existed.
For example, these 25 precincts? Name two. I’ll even give you one — Maplewood 06. There. Name one more. In the whole state. I mean, this is widespread, obvious error, and there are 25 precincts in which it happened.
Name one other. Or shut the hell up.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Incidentally, who sees Joe Bodell next? He totally called this one…
January 19th, 2009 at 1:44 PM
The stealth campaign by Team Coleman and surrogates for a revote is puzzling to me. If the election contest goes to Franken, there is no way there will be a revote – Franken wins the canvassing board and the contest, no one will deny him the seat. If the election contest goes to Coleman, he shouldn’t want a revote, he should want to be declared the winner outright. So he’s either after something he won’t get or won’t want.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Wow, the lefty nutjobs are all drooling overtime today. Must have hit a real nerve with this column, Michael.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:21 PM
“The “recount†in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.—
“Totally debunked!”
“Many of us have been begging for anyone to provide a list of these 25 precincts, but no one has been able to produce it.”
It’s amazing how moonbats can debunk something for which they have no credible information, isn’t it?
Pfffft.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:24 PM
“Flash has provided his over and over, and backed it up with facts.”
Yup, he totally Pwn3d that one, didn’t he, Feckless?
Pfffft #2.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:25 PM
“Flash, You could very well be wrong. Please povide a source for your claim that theverything reconciled.”"
http://tinyurl.com/8rbedf
–
election judge error in the same precinct had Coleman observers wondering why there were 31 more ballots than voters who had signed in on Election Day. Guilfoile said the mistake involved absentee voters who properly sent in their registration cards, but whose names judges failed to record on the voting rolls on Election Day.
–
The source is NOT the STRIB who is only reporting the information, the source is Karen Guilfoile, Maplewood’s director of city services
Pete f, your turn!
Flash
January 19th, 2009 at 2:26 PM
While I agree this entire post voting situation by Team Franken is complete election fraud, Bush v Gore really does not serve as precedence for future cases.
In actuality, the Justices took painstaking methods in writing the decision that the ruling only would impact that specific instance in Florida. It was the first time in history the court had ruled for one person, being President Bush (rightly I may add) and thus making the case moot.
Furthermore, I don’t believe this case would apply in Minnesota’s election law because their are clearly defined rules for certifying election results in Minnesota and the US Constitution clearly notes that each state will be responsible for holding elections.
Finally, Jeff Fecke, you are way off base and maybe more people would take you seriously if you weren’t such a jerk.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Jeff, please tell me where I alleged anything of the sort. If you guys can’t back up what you claim just say so.
Why is it you guys always get so bent out of shape when someone asks for some supporting documentation? I suppose it is a natural defense to people who lie all the time.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Flash, you missed the other ones. How about the one where they had more votes on election day then they did in the recount? Then went with the election day totals instead of the recount totals? That sure sounds like double counting to me – or are you saying there is some other type of fraud going on there.
Your turn Flash.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Pete..
Once again, you can not be satisfied. Since I learned that, my relationship with you is so much better.
When are YOU going to take a turn at proving something to yourself? It’s not easy, in fact it’s down right impossible!
Hell, you have not even provided a link to prove the world is round yet!!!!
January 19th, 2009 at 3:59 PM
WE get bent our of shape?
LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 19th, 2009 at 3:59 PM
We get bent out of shape?
LOL !!!!!!!!!!!
January 19th, 2009 at 4:00 PM
“Then went with the election day totals instead of the recount totals? That sure sounds like double counting to me”
Man, you guys can’t even keep your conspiracies straight.
No one has alleged that counting the election day totals for the lost Hennepin county ballots constituted double counting. That’s an entirely different issue. There, it was undisputed that those ballots existed and were machine counted but were simply lost. What’s the remedy? Simply tossing the ballots? That strikes me as ridiculous and just invited crooked election officials in the future “accidentally” losing ballots before a state mandated recount.
I’m still perplexed Petey why you think it should be Democrats who proves republican accusations false. Isn’t the burden on republicans to demonstrate that their accusations have merit?
I think Coleman is a murdered. What, you have no evidence to suggest he isn’t? Well, then he must be. Yet, here, you’ve been presented with evidence that the urban myths are false and you yet you still don’t suggest it.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:31 PM
“How about the one where they had more votes on election day then they did in the recount? Then went with the election day totals instead of the recount totals? That sure sounds like double counting to me – or are you saying there is some other type of fraud going on there.”
= = = =
In the mpls precinct we have these facts, there were FIVE envelopes marked 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, and 5/5. Envelope 1/5 is missing.
http://tinyurl.com/a8htuq
–
“”Minneapolis election officials examined voting documents and interviewed workers who were part of the chain of custody of the ballots, said Cindy Reichert, the city’s elections director. “Now, the physical search begins again,” she said.
The ballots were in one of five envelopes that precinct judges delivered to the city’s warehouse early on the morning of Nov. 5. But when re-counters started their work, the envelope labeled “1″ among the five was missing, Reichert said.”"
–
133 votes were short on the voter rolls, and 132 votes short in the senate race based on election night numbers. Precedent already existed whereby if ballots were missing, you went with the election night numbers. The only issue here, is we can’t have an evaluation of that 133rd ballot which could have shown voter intent, but was not read by the machine.
So, 2 for 2, Pete, and you still haven’t given me ONE instance of more votes than voters, because, it doesn’t exists. I look forward to your sourced information.
Flash
January 19th, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Evidence of double counting? How about the 25 precincts that have more ballots than voters?
January 19th, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Well, if they were Franken votes, what’s the problem?
January 19th, 2009 at 7:15 PM
We can all be grateful that our Secretary of State is as non-partisan as they come, a true credit to the pristine system we have here in this state.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Richie’s clever… he’s not non-partisan.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:43 PM
How about the 25 precincts that have more ballots than voters?
Which were those again? Jeff and Flash have been waiting for someone to tell them which 25 precincts had more votes than voters. Once someone does, you’ll get an answer.
You’re right, swiftee. We’ve gone ahead and put “25 precincts” into the , “Uhh, we don’t know that” (c. Joe Soucheray) column until someone tells us which precincts those are.
I know that just because there’s no evidence of the claim doesn’t mean it’s not true, as long as you have faith!
January 19th, 2009 at 8:24 PM
danbrome, we do not have a relationship. You may wish I was your type but I am not.
Flash, if the votes can’t be found they cannot be counted. How can you count votes that no one can touch? The recount needs to be done only with votes that actually exist.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:25 PM
I don’t understand how the absentee votes that are now being counted ONLY for the al/Norm race. Shouldn’t the whole ballot count for all races and votes cast. There were a lot of close races.
What if the new votes would have made a difference in other races if they were counted on election day.
Why are they only being counted for just this one race?
Now they aren’t counted for the other legal votes cast on the ballot, cities, school board, state reps, Pres, etc.
Isn’t it an equal protection issue.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Pete…
Do you have your Tivo ready to record history tomorrow? This could be the start of something big for the Dems!
January 19th, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Chestnut echoes “Evidence of double counting? How about the 25 precincts that have more ballots than voters?”"
that what we are in search of, but no one seems to know which precincts these are since there aren;t any, even one, wiht the exception of Maplewood 06, which has already been reconciled due to Judge error
–
Pete f “Flash, if the votes can’t be found they cannot be counted. How can you count votes that no one can touch? The recount needs to be done only with votes that actually exist.”
Ya know, I actually agree with you for the sake of clarity, however, there is precedent for this long before Al and Nor knotted up in this endless do over. It has always been practice that if ballots were determined missing, which in this case they in fact are, you use the machine tape. It is how it is, whether it was Norm or Al.
See, we have a system in place, we don’t get to pick whether or not they go for our guy or not.
So back to that pesky more votes than voters issue . . . you say 25, I say show me 5, hell, even one other than Maplewood 06 which has already been reconciled.
Flash
January 19th, 2009 at 9:17 PM
I really enjoy how the WSJ, a business newspaper, is passing legal judgment on the veracity of our election. Obviously, those responsible wrote the editorial without the help of a competent lawyer, or, as pointed out above, it would have been realized that Bush v. Gore isn’t precedent for anything. It seems rather strange that the WSJ’s “obvious, embarrassing” violation of the Constitution hasn’t been commented on anywhere else, much less ruled on by a court of law.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:19 PM
It’s clear that the choir of liberal bray-ers don’t care about the facts. The facts are that there are several hundred more votes counted in the re-count than there were voters who signed the books or voted absentee. Everyone who says that Franken is the winner is seriously deluding themselves. Franken is ahead in the recount by a mere 225 votes. But there are hundreds of apparent double votes (ie. more votes counted than voters). Moreover, there could be thousands of absentee voters whose votes were improperly rejected in the first place — but more importantly, treated unconstituionally treated in the recount. Professor Paulson’s theory on having a new election may be novel. But his analysis of the equal protection issue and the facts which will be presented at trial are spot on.
I will agree with Aaron (ie. the Team Franken propagandist) that the recount process has been transparent. All that means, however, is that the mistakes and constituional issues are easily spotted and right out in the open for anyone with eyes and ears to discover. Just because a process is transparent doesn’t mean that it’s (1) accurate or (2) legal. If I went to the MIA and took “Olive Trees” by Vincent van Gogh off the wall and walked out the door with it. My action would be transparent (ie. done in public view). But it would not be legal or just.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Political Comedy,
Nice try, but the person who wrote the article is a law professor at the University of St. Thomas and a former Associate Dean of the University of Minnesota Law School. Perhaps if you had read the entire article, you would have noted the author’s distinguished biography. Somehow I trust the legal analysis of a distinguished attorney more than the musings of a comedian.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Chris, in post #42, you must be an insider and know something the rest of us do not. Most everything you cite is an assumption or an allegation. No proof has been provided yet. That is what the Coleman lawyers will have to do in the coming weeks. It’s amazing that you seem to know the proof and facts when Coleman’s lawyers have not been able to produce them yet. I hope you are well paid for your knowledge.
Please stop repeating the Coleman talking points as fact. Or provide PROOF and I’ll shut up.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:45 PM
AC,
Your snide remark supposes the absurdity that I can go to Ramsey and Hennepin Counties and
produce the voter books and the ballots. So I guess you’re right that the Coleman campaign will be proving this in court.
One of the charges, however, has been widely discussed in the media. That surrounds the issue of the 133 ballots in Hennepin County. The fact is that 133 fewer ballots were counted in Hennepin County in the recount than on election night. The fact also remains that never in Minnesota history has a Canvassing Board accepted the election night tally over the recount tally. The actions in this case fly in the face of recount law. This too will be proven in court.
In all honesty, your skepticism is unfounded. In media story after media story, the chief election judges in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties acknowledge serious mistakes and flaws in the recount process.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Chris: Try this, go over to the Secretary of States website, and go through the XLS and PDFs on filed, and find me ONE, just ONE precinct that shows more votes than voters.
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=1405
I just looked at a couple dozen big ones and none of them had more votes than voters. What you said is pure conjecture bordering falacy. But hey, run over to the link, and score all 4000+ of those precincts, find ONE, just ONE and let me know.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Flash,
Show me where on the Secretary of State’s website one can find the total number of voters who signed the books or cast absentee ballots. Funny, because that information is not on the SoS web site.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:57 PM
P.S. Flash,
Our brilliant, non-partisan Sec. of State didn’t even bother to tally the votes for Dean Barkley or the other Senate candidates and post the accurate numbers for those people on the website. How can you tell anything by looking at his figures?
January 19th, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, stated in a press release on November 26, 2008: ‘Today’s decision by the Minnesota Canvassing Board not to count certain absentee ballots is cause for great concern. As the process moves forward, Minnesota authorities must ensure that no voter is disenfranchised. A citizen’s right to have his or her vote counted is fundamental in our democracy.’
The leader of the United State’s Senate,one of the 5 most powerful men in this nation…a grand nation which is founded on the Constitution… has spoken….
He has SPOKEN!!! Now will you adhere huh will you listen and Adhere! The Mighty leader of the Untited State’s Senate, Senator Harry Reid has SPOKEN!!!
January 19th, 2009 at 11:25 PM
“The fact is that 133 fewer ballots were counted in Hennepin County in the recount than on election night.”
True, Envelope 1/5 is missing, and there was 133 ballots short as compared to the signed voter log from that night. These two items alone show that there are missing ballots and NOT double counted votes.
“The fact also remains that never in Minnesota history has a Canvassing Board accepted the election night tally over the recount tally.”
FALSE
http://timberjay.com/current.php?article=4995
“”"The Canvassing Board resolved the problem by using the election night count for that precinct, a decision with legal precedent. But even if Coleman were to prevail on that issue, Franken would lose only 46 votes, still not enough to turn the election.”"”
OK, Ready for a bunch of Case cites supporting the precedent (PDF here, http://tinyurl.com/a3o7sx, see page 23)
Fact explosion in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
—-
(E)ven were this remedy permissible, Coleman’s claim would fail on its face. As the State Canvassing Board recognized, based on advice from the Attorney General, Minnesota law is clear that once ballots are deemed missing, Notice 112(c), election officials must turn to the next best evidence: here, the vote totals provided by election officials on Election Day. See
Moon v. Harris, 142 N.W. 12, 14 (Minn. 1913); see also Stemper v. Higgins, 37 N.W. 95 (Minn.
1888) (stating that when ballots have not been properly safeguarded, other evidence should be
used as indication of vote).
Quite simply, “while the ballots are original evidence, the official results are prima facie
evidence of the votes cast. Where the original ballots cannot be deemed trustworthy, or as here,
are missing, the official results are the best evidence.” McDunn v. Williams, 620 N.E.2d 385,
402 (111. 1993) (emphasis added). This principle is clearly established not only in Minnesota but
23-
Page 24
across the country—and has been for well over a century. See Newton v. Newell, 6 N.W. 346,
347 (Minn. 1880) (“The ballots cast at an election may… be resorted to for the purpose of
disputing the returns of the board of canvassers, and of investigating and ascertaining the actual
state of the vote. But to entitle them to be used for these purposes it must affirmatively appear
that they have, in the language of section 18 of the election law, been “carefully preserved”)
(emphasis added); Sullivan v. Ebner, 262 N.W. 574, 575-76 (Minn. 1935) (citing Newton and
concluding that trial court was correct to reject recounted ballots as likely subjected to
tampering); see also Graham v. Reid, 119 N.E.2d 391, 395 (111. App. 2002) (“the returns are
prima facie evidence of the results when the ballots in a precinct are missing”); Henderson v.
Maley, 806 P.2d 626, 632 (Okl. 1991) (where there is reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the
ballot boxes “no recount is had and the returns of the precinct officials prevail”); Thorns v.
Andersen, 235 N.W.2d 898 (S.D. 1975) (holding that, where ballots were missing from recount,
the court should have avoided disenfranchising more than 200 electors by using official canvass
in place of ballots themselves); Wilson v. Burridge, 346 P.2d 282, 285 (Wy. 1959) (“The fact
alone that only 505 ballots out of 529 were found and recounted impugns the integrity of the
ballots to such an extent that the recount cannot prevail”); Burke v. Beasley, 75 So.2d 7 (Fla.
1954) (holding that where integrity of ballot box had been compromised, the ballots lost their
probative force and were not admissible to impeach the Election Day return); Smith v. Kincaid,
235 S.W.2d 62, 64 (Ky. 1951) (“[W]here the ballots were missing from one of the boxes, they, of
course, could not be examined as evidence of the result of the election”; instead, “the original
count made by the board of election commissioners [w]as the best evidence of which the case
was susceptible.” (citing Frazier v. Wright, 228 S.W.2d 424 (Ky. 1950)); Swift v. Registrars of
-24-
Page 25
Voters of Milton, 183 N.E. 727 (Mass. 1932) (holding that it was proper to accept election
figures returned by precinct officers in lieu of missing ballots)
= = = =
Chris echoes: “”The fact also remains that never in Minnesota history has a Canvassing Board accepted the election night tally over the recount tally.”"
You may claim fact, but now I have just shown you multiple cites where, in fact, you are wrong . . . again!
January 19th, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Flash,
Since you’re the one repeating talking points, I want you to prove that the envelope existed in the first place and is, in fact, missing.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:32 PM
My friends!…My liberal and conservative friends let us in these moments of temporal passion not stain the Constitution!
After all Minnesota isn’t Chicago, Illinois.
Let us side with our better angels! Relax, read this below and meditate…Then put on a kettle of green tea…then read again this below…then keep doing this until your Ying balances with your Yang. Later go to the bathroom and urinate if needed.
“Obviously, not every one of the 12,000 rejected absentee ballots was wrongfully rejected. However, those that were – those that were rejected through no fault of the voter – and conform to the laws of this state as to voting requirements, voter eligibility and voter intent – we believe those ballots must be opened.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:41 PM
P.S. Flash,
As I just finished reading the legal memo you copied and pasted into your comments shows two things. First, that Minnesota case history says that you go back to the original vote (as opposed to the recounted vote) when there was “tampering” or “improperly safeguarded.” The rest of the cases cited are from other states, including states outside of the Eighth Judicial Circuit. Those cases are not Minnesota Law, but rather are used to persuade the court to follow other states’ precedent.
In other words, except for when the ballots were either tampered with or improperly secured, the law requires the use of the recounted number instead of the election night number. I have not seen any facts showing that the ballots were, in fact, improperly secured under the law. I have also not seen any evidence that there is a missing envelope or that such ballots ever existed in the first place.
This is a very simple issue to resolve, however. All one has to do is compare the number of signatures in the book to the number of ballots counted.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Quiet!!Quite!!!!
January 19th, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Chris, there is an envelope physically marked 1/5 that is missing, that is why we mark things 1 of total. IN this case 1/5 – 5/5. Envelopes 2/5 – 5/5 are accounted for. 1/5 is missing. Also, the recount was short 133 votes from election night AND from voter on the voter rolls.
Here, Mpls W3P1 (via SoS Site):
MINNEAPOLIS W-3 P-01
Registered Voter – 1690
+ Same Day Registrants – 901
Total Registered voters – 2591
Signed IN — 1978
Military Absentees – 42
Federral Absentees – 8
Total Voters from Precinct – 2028
= = = =
Results
DEAN BARKLEY 247 12.57
NORM COLEMAN 595 30.28
AL FRANKEN 1090 55.47
CHARLES ALDRICH 25 1.27
JAMES NIEMACKL 4 0.20
WRITE-IN** 4 0.20
MICHAEL CAVLAN** 0 0.00
JOHN H. EVAN** 0 0.00
ANTHONY KEITH PRICE** 0 0.00
JACK SHEPARD** 0 0.00
TOTAL 1965 In Senate
2026 In Presidential race
Simple math reconciles well and one would be hard pressed to claim there is double counting in this precinct. There is a clear under vote here. If there was wide spread, or intermittent over voting when compared to the Pres race, there might be an argument. But it;s not there
January 19th, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Oh, and by the way Flash, there are not several examples of Minnesota not using the recounted ballot figures. There are four. The first and most recent case is Sullivan v. Ebner from 1935. The second, and next recent case is Moon v. Harris from 1913. The third and next recent case is Stemper v. Higgins from 1888. And the last, and oldest by a whisker is Newton v. Newell from 1880.
Again those cases discuss tampering and improperly secured ballots. Neither instance has been proven in this case.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Flash,
How do you know there is an undervote? There are literally thousands of ballots where people voted in the Presidential election and did not vote in the U.S. Senate race. I don’t know where you’re getting your info. re: the total number of voters in a precinct. But that information is not provided in the recount numbers. Nor is Dean Barkley’s vote or the lesser parties. One cannot tell the correct number of voters in the recount figures.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:58 PM
P.S. Flash,
How do you know someone didn’t make a mistake in labelling the envelopes 1/5, 2/5…and so on? That is not an official count of an election. We tally votes not envelopes — and for good reason.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Hard to keep up when I have to do all your research for you.
#47 – The Canvassing report records number of voters:
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/postpercanvassingreport1117250p.pdf
==
You said “”never in Minnesota history has a Canvassing Board accepted the election night tally over the recount tally.”"
I showed you multiple examples of where they did. I never claimed they never stuck with recount numbers.
==
The 12/12/08 Canvassing Board Minutes talks extensively of the Mpls W1P3 Ballots. You should read it:
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/december_12_canvassing_board_minutes.pdf
“”There was one golden envelope containing ballots with write-in candidates and numbered 1/1. There were also four tyvek envelopes numbered 2/5, 3/5, 4/5 and 5/5, but not one labeled 1/5.
Initially the staff thought that perhaps the envelope was stacked in a different ward’s pile at the election warehouse, as there were many ballots stacked on pallets. As elections staff proceeded, the thought they would identify whether the ballots had been misplaced and would locate the envelope.
On Tuesday, December 2, the staff had finished counting all the ballots at the warehouse and
confirmed that the envelope in question was not there. “”
The envelope is missing, people know it existed, they remembered creating it, but now it can;t be found. 3 millions ballots cast and 133 went missing. Not bad, really.
I have the reconciliation of W1 P3 with before and after numbers. I’ll post it when I find it. Lots of stuff here when you actually do the digging and not rely on the campaigns for information.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:05 AM
W1P3
Rec = Recount Numbers
Elec = Election night
Rec Elec
0561 0595 Coleman
1010 1090 Franken
0323 0343 Other
0001 Challenge by Frankn
0001 Challenge by Coleman
1896 2028 Total (132 difference)
= = = = = = = =
# of Voters
Audit Elec
2030 2028 In Person + Absentee
1896 Hand Count
2028 Machine Count Tape
January 20th, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Flash,
Nice try but you’re not an attorney and you do not know anything about citing case law. As I said from reading the case law, there were four cases (the most recent dating back to 1935) when the recount totals were rejected over the original election night count. All four cases dealt with two issues: tampering or improperly secured ballots. There is no evidence that ballots were tampered with or improperly secured. The case law doesn’t allow for the recount numbers to be rejected just because the election night workers think they might have misplaced an envelope. The rest of the cases you cited are NOT Minnesota cases and therefore, are not law in our state.
I’m still not convinced that the envelope existed in the first place. That issue will be litigated in court.
Also, the numbers you provide do not show how many people signed the voter books or voted absentee. A simple count of the voter signatures and the absentee ballots will give the total voting strength and will solve the question as to whether there were overvotes or undervotes.
But under the law, the Canvassing Board exceeded their authority by throwing out the recounted numbers and allowing the election night results. Minnesota law clearly only allows the recounted numbers to be dismissed when there was outright tampering or when the ballots were improperly secured. There is no evidence of either in this case.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Chris, you’ve lost your mind. Of course there’s an issue over ballots not being properly secured: THEY LOST AN ENVELOPE FULL OF THEM. So the case law is on point and was properly applied. You can argue about whether or not that SHOULD be the law, but in this case it was properly applied.
Also, just because a case isn’t from MN doesn’t mean it can’t inform a decision. What, did you really think that judges only look at the Minn Statute and prior Minn decisions to reach a judgement?
Flash is (as per usual) producing evidence to back up his points. You are declaring that you think something else happened. Who has more credibility? Need a hint?
I’m still waiting to find out which of these 25 precincts has been proven to have double-counted votes. Show me the evidence. Stop repeating that it happened just because you hate Franken and want it to be true.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Josh,
Since you apparently didn’t go to law school, I don’t blame you for being uninformed about how case law works. But cases from outside Minnesota and especially from outside the Eighth Circuit are only used as persuasive arguments. While I have not read the Coleman brief, I’m sure there are persuasive case law from other states to back up his arguments. And there may be case law from Minnesota that would be on point in this instance.
The issue of the ballots being missing is an issue of fact applied to the law. Just because the ballots allegedly went missing does not mean they were improperly secured under the law. Whether they were improperly secured is a question of fact as applied to the law. And that will be litigated in court.
Since you are a Franken Kool Aid drinker, you apparently are unaware that the Secretary of State does not provide the full recounted numbers on the SOS website. I don’t understand why you keep disputing that there were double counting of votes when even members of the Canvassing Board have acknowledged this fact. However, like all facts, the Coleman campaign will be litigating them in a court of law where such facts are to be proven.
And I resent your claim that I hate Franken. See, the hatemongers are on your side of the aisle. The comments about President Bush, Norm Coleman and his family, and many others, which appear on this site on a daily basis show where the hate is. My complaint is with a process which has flagrantly treated some ballots (ie. ballots in DFL areas) differently than others (ie. ballots in the rest of the state). Especially the double counted votes and the absentee ballots which were not properly counted.
Moreover, I’m tired of hearing Democrats bitch about disenfranchising voters on the one hand while purposelly disenfranchising voters on the other. All legal votes should count and count equally.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:21 AM
P.S. Josh,
It’s a little irnoic that you would complain about alleged hate toward Franken. After all hate is based upon Franken’s qualifications to run for office and his interest in becoming a U.S. Senator for Minnesota. Ever read any of his books or listen to his failed radio program?
January 20th, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I’m not going to keep repeating myself. I have produced everything you asked for, including counts before and after, the number of voters signed into the log, plus absentee ballots including links to this information.
But in this entire exchange you have ignored my factual evidence supported by documentation. You choose to turn your back on these facts, that is your choice.
So now lets move on, Please present a list of the 25 precincts . . heck, present a list of 5 (with supporting documentation as I have) Until then, you are spouting nothing by fantasy.
Flash
Celebrating President Barack Hussein Obama II, the dawn of a new era in America!
January 20th, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Flash,
See, unlike many Democrats four and eight years ago, I’m not in mourning that Obama won the election. But I fundamentally disagree with you that we are in the dawn of a new era in America. America’s greatness is not found in one man (ie. the president). America’s greatness was sealed some 200 years ago in our founding documents and the beacon we lit for the world.
I’m sad to see President Bush, whom I’ve met a half dozen times, leave office. He is a good man who kept our country safe. But I’m happy to witness the peaceful and patriotic transfer of power from one administration to the next.