« AL FRANKEN IS STILL LYING ABOUT SUPPORTING THE WAR | Home | PIONEER PRESS: “ACCIDENTAL SENATOR” »
COLEMAN RECOUNT UPDATE: “COLEMAN CAMPAIGN FILES MOTION TO RESOLVE COUNTING OF ILLEGAL ABSENTEE BALLOTS”
By Ryan Flynn | February 20, 2009
ST. PAUL – Ballots identical to ones declared illegal by the three-judge Senate contest court in a February 13 order are included in the current vote totals of the candidates, a situation that must be remedied if there is to be a valid conclusion to the U.S. Senate election, Senator Norm Coleman’s campaign said today.
“The most recent court ruling by the three-judge panel declares categories of ballots ‘illegal’ and throws into doubt the current count which contains thousands of ballots the court has now found illegal, meaning that Al Franken’s lead is officially not real – and a valid result in this election is in serious doubt. Until and unless these serious problems are addressed, Minnesotans can have no confidence in being able to know who actually won this race. The judges must remedy the situation created by their Friday the 13th ruling that has resulted in ballots they now rule to be illegal to also be included in the current totals,†Coleman counsel Ben Ginsberg said.
In its Motion to have the court apply its February 13, 2009 order uniformly to the previously counted absentee ballots, the campaign noted that the court said it “must enforce the comprehensive statutory scheme governing absentee balloting in accordance with its unambiguous terms.†To do that, the campaign said the court must resolve the conundrum that “certainly hundreds, and likely thousands, of absentee ballots are already opened and included in the current count that under the Court’s analysis were not legally cast votes.â€
Specifically, the campaign cited seven ballots the Court ordered included in the count on February 10 that it rendered illegal in its own February 13 ruling; more than 30 ballots that representative of nearly 100 included in the January 3 Canvassing Board recount that are now illegal under the Friday the 13th order, and 97 ballots representative of thousands of absentee ballots counted on election night in the counties that are now “illegal†under the Court’s ruling.
The Coleman filing includes copies in excess of 135 actual ballots that are representative of those now in the count but invalidated by the Court’s order. The campaign also filed an emergency motion offering the option of ordering the Secretary of State to preserve the status quo for all materials and the 933 ballots counted by the Canvassing Board. The Court and the two campaigns had signed a stipulation on February 3, 2009 that all those ballots are “lawful†and could be separated, but the campaign’s motion noted the Court’s February 13 contradicts that.
The examples attached to the pleadings include ballots counted on election day, during the canvassing board recount and on February 10 but which are now “illegal†according to the court in the following categories: ones where the voter did not sign the certification; the witness notary failed to affix stamp or seal; the witness gave out-of-state address; there was no identification number on UOCAVA ballot; there was no witness to the ballot; the voter did not include an address; the witness did not include an address or there was no proof of residence for the voter or witness.
The Memorandum also includes detailed statistics demonstrating that numerous ballots witnessed by persons who are not Minnesota voters and where the signatures on the absentee ballot envelope and ballot application did not match are included in the current counts. These ballots were also ruled illegal in the Court’s February 13 order.
###
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 49 Comments »
49 Responses to “COLEMAN RECOUNT UPDATE: “COLEMAN CAMPAIGN FILES MOTION TO RESOLVE COUNTING OF ILLEGAL ABSENTEE BALLOTS””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Jesus, could Coleman’s attorneys pick a strategy and run with it as opposed to changing their position on a daily basis?
Don’t count any absentee ballots, don’t count some absentee ballots, count every absentee ballot, count the absentee ballots we’ve listed, uncount already counted absentee ballots that we’ve stipulated should be counted.
At least Coleman’s attorneys have finally figured out you can’t have the requisite remedy in an equal protection claim be, “count a bunch of illegal ballots.”
February 20th, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Thanks Michael for continuing to publish the truth. Even the libs come by daily to see it and then try to spin their tale. Keep up the good work!
God bless Norm Coleman! May every LEGAL vote be counted!
February 20th, 2009 at 8:37 PM
PD you sound nerves- your loony rant is nothing but pure desperation when the irrefutable logic prevails that shows Al’s two sided attempt to steal this election.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:40 PM
They are running out of options at this point and have abandoned any attempt to maintain a consistent strategy. It seems at this point that they are just trying to put off what is beginning to appear inevitable. They just can’t find the votes.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:51 PM
This site is fricken ridiculous with its posting of old talking points. Ryan, is this original “reporting or a posting of a news release?
Methinks you got the quote directly by the looks of it. If it is simply posting a press release material, ick on you you lazy kool aide drinker. It took this site three days to get this lame spin out?
February 20th, 2009 at 9:25 PM
WC – If you think Franken has employed a “two-sided” approach to winning, then how many sides has Coleman employed. He and his legal team have changed position so many times it’s starting to look like one of those crazy “Dungeon’s and Dragon’s” dice with umpteen sides to it.
Granted, the court rulings never seam to go their way, so I guess they are being “forced” to course-correct on a nearly daily basis.
I think it’s obvious that they are doing everything in their power to set this up for an appeal. The question is, where will they appeal? And how long will that take? And what will Pawlenty do when that happens?
February 20th, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Actually Coleman has been extremly consistant. He wants all votes to be counted on a consistant basis.
NO ILLEGAL ballots should be counted
or
If SOME ILLEGAL ballots are counted which is the case then ALL ILLEGAL ballots should be counted.
One OR the other-not a mix-that Franken tries to use to his advantage.
If all ballots are not considered on the same basis then you are saying some peoples votes count more than others.
All the mudraking and namecalling from the Dems/libs does not obscure this FACT from all rational thinking people.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Sue-
Lay off the vodka. To call Coleman’s approach consistent is to draw attention to your own ignorance.
Seriously. Very sad.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:48 AM
If Franken’s lawyers are being two-sided, Coleman’s legal team must be headed by Euclid.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:07 AM
Elections have never been consistent, and that’s never been a condition of their validity in the past and shouldn’t be now. I am for enforcing the rule of law, but the clock is ticking here. There is no point at all in pursuing some sort of standard of perfection if it takes six years to do it.
I don’t have a constitutional right to have my vote treated consistently, but I do have a right to have my vote counted, and I do have a right to two US Senators. As long as this election remains undecided, those two rights are being violated.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:35 AM
Leroy. You are very rude. Why do you hate women so much? “Lay off the vodka”, Leroy you are a complete ass.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:45 AM
That’s right Leroy. Since you can’t refute what I say because it’s the truth you immediately resort to insults.
Typical liberal. We see it here all the time.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:45 PM
PlymouthDem – don’t you understand this is the “evidentiary” hearing of the election challenge? Everytime some new information is found, it becomes “evidence” and must be investigated and adjudicated. Right now the problem lies in what they counted in the recount is not being allowed to be counted now. I think they should chuck the whole mess(because the ballots have been so deeply compromised to authenticity by the candidates, by the recount judges, and by the SOS) and hold a completely new election between Coleman and Franken. Such action would settle the contest and would allow the winning candidate to start without this hanging over their head.
Sue, the old saying – if you cannot refute the message, attack the messenger – which is Leroy’s MO.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Bob,
The decision by the Court was a question of law, not fact. They ruled as a matter of law that the 12 categories were properly rejected. Part of that calculus was that the election officials lawfully applied their granted discretionary power to reject ballots. Evidence doesn’t change that fact. Indeed, there was no factual dispute as to what the ballots said.
Further, there are controlling issues of law associated with parties conduct. For example, a party cannot argue one thing one day and that flip the next. Coleman stipulated that the ballots should be counted AND that the identifying information related to the ballots wiped (in my opinion, it should have never been kept in the first place since it risks the right to a private ballot.. why aren’t all of you republicans jumping up and down about that issue NOW?). Coleman and his counsel cannot now change their mind and say they were not legally counted. Again, this is not a question of fact (or evidence), it’s a question of law.
Putting aside the fact Minnesota law doesn’t contemplate a whole new election as a remedy to an election challenge, or that it disenfranchises every Minnesota voter, I ask you WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO IF ONLY A FEW HUNDRED VOTES SEPARATE THEM A SECOND TIME?
The reality is Minnesota law (as it must), along with any other state law, requires that a component of the counting process include a discretionary step. A human needs to make a call. Discretion, by its nature, results in somewhat different results. The question is merely one of whether that discretion was lawfully applied. In the case of ballots being rejected, it was. In the case of the ballots that were not rejected and counted, it was. Could two ballots be very similar and two different results occur? Sure. That’s NOT the basis of an equal protection claim, however.
The Court is almost certainly not going to reverse itself on its Friday ruling and it’s almost certainly not going to let Coleman back out of his stipulation that the election officials lawfully applied their discretion in accepting or rejecting absentee ballots.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I’ve got some worries about those Minnesota Republicans. They’re showing signs of progressing from wusses and naifs to major-league legal hardballers. I miss the days when they simply rolled over and played dead.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:01 PM
PlymouthDem, while there is nothing that can be done now but I had a problem with the way the recount progressed(not an attorney, so cannot argue law as you have posted). The recount should have only recounted those ballots cast and counted in the original outcome on November 4th, 2008. The “five piles” of ballots should have been held as “evidentiary” ballots and been assigned to the current evidentiary court to determine validity to be able to counted – in the event a challenge was made( the canvassing board should have had any jurisdiction regarding those ballots). MPO, I believe Ritchie overstepped his legal responsibility when he opened up the “five piles” of ballots as part of the recount. We would not be going thru the legal gymnastics of they ruled, we ruled, they could not rule, we can rule, with regards to the “five piles” of ballots. I may be wrong but I see simliarities of one other recount that played hopscoth “gotcha” as I see the same or similiar players in the process. JMHO.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Bob,
Your inclination about being wrong was right. There can be no judicial contest until the court has jurisdiction to hear a contest. Under Minnesota law, the Court has no jurisdiction until the canvassing board finishes canvassing and certifies a result. The canvassing board can’t just ignore a big pile of ballots and nonetheless certify the result. It either must reject or not reject ballots. The canvassing board, particularly in light of the decision by the Supreme Court, had jurisdiction to count the ballots.
The three judge panel’s jurisdiction then is to determine whether election officials properly exercised their discretion granted to them by Minnesota state law and affirmed by the Supreme Court. They decided their discretion was properly applied AND both candidates agreed. End of discussion. Coleman waived his ability to challenge that determination when he stipulated it was correct. He had every opportunity to disagree, not stipulate, and preserve an appeal. However, it wasn’t convenient for him to do so at that juncture, indeed, it was not compatible with his argument at the time. He’s now radically shifted his position–the problem is he doesn’t get to take it back.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Sue,
I’d like to point out something about the following statement you made yesterday:
“NO ILLEGAL ballots should be counted
or
If SOME ILLEGAL ballots are counted which is the case then ALL ILLEGAL ballots should be counted.”
Let me explain something. The reason one would argue against illegal ballots being counted is because many believe that it is inherently wrong to include illegal votes in an election. You turn around and say “but… now we should count all illegal ballots.” You’re incapable of understanding any logic beyond that which helps or hurts the GOP candidate. If you think illegal ballots SHOULDN’T be counted, then you cannot possibly believe that the solution to having counted illegal ballots is COUNTING MORE ILLEGAL BALLOTS. But you DO believe it, which is unbelievable, I believe.
How can we take you serious when you don’t even understand the argument you’re making? And, finally, saying Coleman was consistent is the biggest joke in the world. Coleman and Brodkorb alike spent the days after election day to say: “Coleman won. You need to resign now or risk the very foundation which our state constitution rests on.” If he’s been consistent, Sue’s arguments are intelligent and valid.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Sam, having comprehension problems again? The point Sue made was that if they are going to count illegal ballots for Franken then they need to count them for Coleman.
I realize in you DFL stupor that you can’t see beyond the party talking points but it does seem fair to say that the same standard should be applied to all votes for all candidates. Either vote all illegal ballots or none. Period.
How in the hell could Senator Coleman suggest to Franken to resign from anything considering he had not and has not won anything? I would love to see where you got that quote from (you did use quote marks).
Just when I didn’t think you could get much stranger…
February 21st, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Petey,
Spare us the mincing of words. It is undisputable that Coleman, and later MDE, repeatedly called for Franken to give up multiple times the immediate days following the recount.
As for Sue’s point, Sam is right, it is absurd. If you believe illegal ballots shouldn’t be counted, it’s illogical to argue that ALL illegal ballots should be counted because a few got counted previously.
It is simply not an equal protection remedy to count 1,000s of illegal ballots because, at most, a few hundred were counted previously. I say at most because I’ve yet to see ANY indication that a ballot has been counted illegally previously. It’s painfully inconsistent. But, Coleman’s entire strategy (can we call it that?) has been painfully inconsistent.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:09 PM
PD, Sam said that Coleman asked Franken to resign. What is Sam saying that Franken should resign from?
Coleman did suggest to Franken that he should step down but what does that have to do with Sue’s post? And is there a problem with him suggesting that? The original vote totals favored Coleman (before the liberal left decided to cheat) so why wouldn’t he suggest that?
Your opinion on Sue’s point is worth the nothing. The fact remains that if some illegal votes were counted then all illegal votes should be counted – not just the votes for Franken.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Sue-
Calling an ignorant person ignorant is only an insult if it isn’t true.
By saying that Norm’s lawyers have been anywhere near consistent, you have proven your ignorance.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Leroy, why do you hate women so much?
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Elton-
I am not calling Sue ignorant because of her sex.
I am calling her ignorant because of her ignorance.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Good point Leroy.
Pete?
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Leroy, you jackass, you accused Sue of being drunk because she wasn’t aggreeing with DFL talking points.
Leroy and danbrome only respect women when they are Democrats.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Chile-
I offered up the alternate of drunk to Sue, so she could use it as a cover for her ignorance. When she re-read her post the next day, I imagine she was very embarrassed for herself. Booze was an easy excuse for her.
When you post I know enough about your mindset to know it comes from ignorance. Same for EltonF. But when a new person posts, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt. Her post was so blistering stupid, some form of impairment seemed to be the only cause.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 PM
“Your opinion on Sue’s point is worth the nothing. The fact remains that if some illegal votes were counted then all illegal votes should be counted – not just the votes for Franken.”
You are such a tool. First, there’s no evidence there’s a been a single illegal vote counted. Second, even if there were, there’s no evidence any of them were for Franken. Finally, you don’t deny it’s categorically incompatible to argue on one hand that we shouldn’t count any illegal votes and on the other, say if a few illegal votes were counted we should could THOUSANDS of illegal votes.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Scott, You have no class. Just because you are a drunk does not mean the rest of the world is. You got that Scott M.?
If any illegal votes were counted all illegal votes should be counted. The alternaive is to throw out the illegal votes already counted which is something the wacky left will not agree to because they know they were counted by their own kind for the benefit of Franken.
PD, You may call me a tool if it pleases you. At least I am a tool with a use. You are a tool with no purpose other than self gratification.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 PM
“If any illegal votes were counted all illegal votes should be counted.”
Well, if that’s your position, then you are absurd.
So, let’s say Coleman identifies that 100 votes are illegal (he’s hasn’t claimed any more than that). Then, let’s say the Court actually says some of those were in fact illegal. In your world, we should then count ALL 12,000 illegal votes? Notably, those votes include double votes. Where’s your outrage about duplicate counting?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Since we know a convicted felon voted for Norm in Roseau County, will Norm similarly be asking that ALL convicted felons who attempted to illegally vote have their votes counted?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I’m starting to worry that my original estimate of Franken by 503 may be too high. Can anybody reassure me that I’m at least close?
I will be embarrassed if Senator Franken wins by just 225.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:33 PM
If Angry Al wins by any margin all Minnesotans should be embarrassed…..
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Is Ron Carey on vacation or something?
This site apparently hasn’t been told what to post in several days now.
Maybe the state has finally brought him to court over the fraud allegations that had him stealing millions from the state for the Autism Center.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Hey Leroy..
This site is designed to expose MInnesota DEMOCRATS, not Republicans. Please fall back into line before Ryan catches on to your behavior.
Ron must be pretty cranky after the latest developments in Former Senator Coleman’s contest.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 PM
“Must enforce the comprehensive statutory scheme governing absentee balloting in accordance with its Unambiguous terms.â€
Ballots that were accepted and counted on the 10nth now don’t meet these “unambiguous terms.”
Very interesting…also 100′s even thousands of loosely passed Hennepin, Ramsey county and other liberal leaning precincts accepted absentee ballots that are now deemed to not fit within the clear standards of the (“with its Unambiguous terms” law. Well…can I raise my hand? If all the ballots have been combed over and searched better then a jailhouse Cocaine smuggler then maybe perhaps…oh since its state law and unambiguous I mean then we could go through these last few thousand and apply these unambiguous and clear terms to all and then take out all the ones that don’t pass these clear state law standards. This is new law and the responsibility to have the intelligence to expand it as law is periodically in order to aid interpretation as a guide. Any one who honestly doesn’t understand this is ignorant of the law. State law means State law…duh. And if government can take someone’s house and give it to a private business to increase the tax base of a city or area then government can retroactively correct clear and unambiguous mistakes that are decisive of a United States Election. Andy Dawkins who can’t even throw out his trash without the city forcing him to is a lawyer who has no reasoning ability. His brains operate on 0′s and 1′s. He was on Almanac the other day and couldn’t comprehend something quite clear. Either that or he is dishonest…I think it is the latter.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:03 PM
I tell you what…If Coleman wins…that is if he does win then it will be worth it never ever to hear or see this slimeball…and maybe then Al the wanna bee slimeball having no more stake in MN will move back to New York. This whole election has been a fluke for Al. Everyone knows he isn’t qualified to do the job. If he wins everyone knows he will be a lame duck one-termer. The Democrat party is really positioning itself for a political fall in a few years unless they get their act together as a whole. It’s embarrassing when Republicans dread hearing more scanadals from accross the isle. This Democratic party in power is actually starting to scare me. I know its early but man President Obama has shown to be more impulsive then I figured him to be. This is what what the Democrats do when they are in power? The party has peaked in this short political boom cycle for the Dems. I actually want the party to succeed for America’s sake, but I am awed at misteps. Will Obama now lose the won war in Iraq by sending 17,000 soldiers to Afganistan? Is this what the Dems wanted troop increases in Afganistan over Iraq. Is that what this was about? You leftwind moveon.org dems are morons. A bunch of suckers.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:49 PM
As I said PD, the wacko left will ignore the possibility of throwing out all of the illegal votes – PlymouthDem proves me correct once again.
Leroy, thanks for pointing out that the one known illegal vote for Norm Coleman was thrown out. Now if we could get all of the illegal votes for Franken thrown out we will be in good shape.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 PM
EltonF-
Please explain how that vote was thrown out. All the news stories on it at the time indicated that the felon’s vote had been thrown into the stack, and there was no way to identify it from any of the legal votes.
So I will ask again. Since Norm KNOWS that there is an illegal vote from a felon included in his count already, will he be calling for ALL felons to have their votes collected and tallied in this election?
Because, if you are making an EP argument, you would he hard pressed to say that other felons were not disenfranchised by the inclusion of Roseau felon’s vote in the final count.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Sue..
With all due respect, what do you know about rational thinking people?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:41 AM
Leroy, you are correct. All of the felons who voted for Franken should demand there votes be counted.
(Why do Leroy and danbrome hate woman so much? Or, is it that they just hate woman who won’t agree with them?)
February 24th, 2009 at 7:51 AM
All felons … and illegals votes for Franken HAVE been counted (some more then once).
Remember all those Somoli’s dragged to the polls by democrats?
Since most Somali’s don’t drink or smoke (the usual DFL incentives to vote) I wonder what they get paid off in.
Democrats have counted on illegal votes to win elections for years. That’s why the voter laws are so loose in Minnesota.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:46 AM
KIS..
More sour grapes.
The DFL will keep you in their prayers.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:48 AM
quicksand..
Your assertion that danbrome hates women is absurd. My question to Sue has nothing to do with her being a woman, and you know it.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:08 AM
danbrome says: “Sue.. With all due respect, what do you know about rational thinking people?”
It’s quite clear that danbrome doesn’t care about anything without a penis attached to it.
danbrome, you should take a cue from Richard Simmons. He genuinely cares about women.
What’s the matter danbrome, your mother never accepted your lifestyle choice?
February 24th, 2009 at 10:16 AM
danbrome,
I’m assuming your odd “sour grapes” remark means you agree that the DFL loves felons and illegals and they love the DFL.
Well at least you are a little honest to come out and admit it.
Now, that part about the DFL praying is really odd …. who does the DFL pray to? Oprah? Gore? Allah?
February 24th, 2009 at 10:53 AM
danbrome prays to the glory hole.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:05 AM
What’s a glory hole?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:39 PM
danbrome prays to his Lord and savior Jesus Christ, just like lots of DFLers do.