« MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “DFL TAX KING TOM BAKK DECIDES TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR” | Home | PIONEER PRESS BLOG: “COUNTING BALLOTS IN THE SENATE RACE?” »
MDE EXCLUSIVE: DATA PRACTICES REQUESTS FILED TODAY REQUESTING COPIES OF CERTAIN REJECTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS
By Michael Brodkorb | June 8, 2009
Starting today, I will be filing data practices request for copies of the front side of all ballots relative to the 2008 U.S. Senate general election contained within rejected absentee ballot envelopes in the possession of certain county/city offices that were not submitted late and were not submitted by persons who otherwise voted in the 2008 general election. I am not aware of any similarly filed data request.
My data practices request will be filed in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Olmsted, Sherburne and Washington, and the cities of Edina, Minnetonka, Orono and Plymouth.
Once I receive the request information from the counties and cities, I plan on posting the ballots on Minnesota Democrats Exposed for counting.
From the requests being filed today:
“The undersigned requests copies of that portion of the front side of all ballots relative to the 2008 United States Senate general election contained within rejected absentee ballot envelopes in your possession that were not submitted late and were not submitted by persons who otherwise voted in the 2008 general election (either in person or by replacement absentee ballot).
This request does not seek to have the undersigned open or unseal any absentee ballot envelopes; to the extent any such envelopes have not yet been opened, the undersigned requests that an election judge do so. This request also does not seek access to any data regarding any individuals, including voter registration applications, voter registration lists or any other information related thereto and subject to restricted access under Minnesota Statutes § 201.091. Finally, this request does not seek copies of the absentee ballot envelopes themselves or any accompanying materials, such as absentee ballot applications. In short, this request in no way seeks to ascertain which person(s) voted for which candidate(s). The request can be easily complied with while protecting the secrecy of the ballots.
This information/data is clearly public information under the MGDPA. As you know, Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subdivision 1 provides that all government data collected, created, received or maintained is public information unless classified by statute, federal law or temporary classification as confidential, private, nonpublic or protected nonpublic data. No such classification exists for the information requested. No Minnesota statute provides that the ballots contained within uncounted rejected absentee ballot envelopes is nonpublic or private information if opened by an election judge; although Minnesota law requires you to securely maintain all election materials, no Minnesota statute exists which denies the public the right to inspect and/or receive copies of the ballots contained within rejected absentee ballot envelopes.”
Please note this section from my data practices request:
“There is simply no risk whatsoever that the secrecy of any ballot(s) will be compromised. Again, this request seeks only a photocopy of the section of ballots relative to the 2008 general election for United States Senator contained within certain rejected absentee ballot envelopes in your possession or under your control and in no way seeks to ascertain which person(s) voted for which candidate(s).
If you do not wish to provide a photocopy of the ballots themselves, the undersigned requests a summary from you indicating the following:
(1)   total number of rejected absentee ballots which have not yet been opened and counted which were not submitted late and were not submitted by persons who otherwise voted in the 2008 general election (whether in person or by replacement absentee ballot) (“Remaining Uncounted Ballotsâ€);
(2)   total number of Remaining Uncounted Ballots for which a mark was made indicating the person’s intent to vote for Al Franken in the 2008 United States Senate election;
(3)   total number of Remaining Uncounted Ballots for which a mark was made indicating the person’s intent to vote for Norm Coleman in the 2008 United States Senate election; and
(4)Â Â Â total number of Remaining Uncounted Ballots for which no mark was made for a United States Senate candidate and for which a mark was made for a United States Senate candidate other than Al Franken or Norm Coleman.”
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for more information on this developing story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 38 Comments »
38 Responses to “MDE EXCLUSIVE: DATA PRACTICES REQUESTS FILED TODAY REQUESTING COPIES OF CERTAIN REJECTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I wonder which part of the digestive sytem Hiram will use when he thinks up a response to this one.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:29 PM
My bet: The exporting portion of the digestive tract.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Oh Michael sweetie. My own personal Don Quixote!
June 8th, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Let’s face it…we should all be blaming the Ultimate “Don Quixote”: Mark Olson
June 8th, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Oh Judy dear, Michael’s own Sara Jane Moore!
June 8th, 2009 at 1:15 PM
I went fishing this weekend too.
Unlike you, I did so in a boat, and I was able to actually catch something. You seem to be casting at a train. And not a train that is passing, but a train that went by a few days ago.
I guess that has sort of been an apt description for the republicans recount effort. Frequently caught flat footed, they try all sorts of Hail Marys once it is far too late for them to actually provide results.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Maybe I missed it, but why just the front side?
June 8th, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Hitting your political opponents by making data privacy requests is a long-time DFL tactic.
Hopefully, MB is only borrowing a page from the DFL and not going over to the dark side of the force.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Dave Bauer, The front side contains the choice for Senate. The backside would be a waste of money – it’s just judges and water district members.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Mike sweetie….I see you are still deleting posts. It’s ok. We all know you have nothing to hide.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Mr.,
You mean how Democrats fought the Florida recount — even after Bush was duly elected and sworn-in as President?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:37 PM
He was obviously a little sensitive to the comment talking about the size of his lance!
June 8th, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Chris-
Yes. EXACTLY like that.
I predict similar results as well.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Ahem:
“The following government data is classified as nonpublic data with regard to data not on individuals, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 9, and as private data with regard to data on individuals, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12: Security information; trade secret information; sealed absentee ballots prior to opening by an election judge; sealed bids, including the number of bids received, prior to the opening of the bids; parking space leasing data; and labor relations information, provided that specific labor relations information which relates to a specific labor organization is classified as protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 13.â€
http://tinyurl.com/lec2cv
Fishing expedition FAIL.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:30 PM
[...] So Mikey Brodkorb got it into his head that with the Minnesota Supreme Court poised to permanently deal Norm Coleman out of the recount game, now might be his last chance to engage in what the kids like to call “grandstanding.” Because as we all know, Mikey is all about the truth: [...]
June 8th, 2009 at 5:48 PM
If counting more ballots proves anything, it will be that Coleman never won the election. Republicans don’t like absentee voting because it means a higher percentage of the population voted which is never good for a Republican candidate.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I wish Judy would say “sweetie” more often. It`s just, you know, so different for her.
June 8th, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Jeff Fecke,
“This request does not seek to have the undersigned open or unseal any absentee ballot envelopes; to the extent any such envelopes have not yet been opened, the undersigned requests that an election judge do so.”
The above is a quoted from the request. Apparently you attempt to comprehend what was sent FAILED. Nice try to deceive though…
June 8th, 2009 at 9:49 PM
The requestor can make whatever technical demand he wants, the fact is that the ballots are currently sealed, and three bancs of election judges have specifically refused to open them. Mikey’s asking for sealed ballots that have not been opened by a judge. Saying he’d like them to be is cute, and beside the point.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:41 PM
I say count more ballot! That’s the only way my prediction of “Franken by 503″ can be exactly right.
It’s no risk to the DFL, as more ballots counted means more ballots for Senator-Elect Franken.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:41 PM
“Beside the point.”? That is the point. Your response to his request is dishonest. Not that I am surprised but why do you have to make things up? Your post on your website does not make note of this part of his request at all.
Why? Is it because it will show that you are trying to score points with a lie?
June 9th, 2009 at 1:02 AM
Jeff Fecke, You act like you read something that the rest of us didn’t.
The following was highlighted in red: “This request does not seek to have the undersigned open or unseal any absentee ballot envelopes; to the extent any such envelopes have not yet been opened, the undersigned requests that an election judge do so.”
Are you color blind? Do you have a black and white computer monitor? Or, are you just a moron?
June 9th, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Fecke,
It’s interesing how desperate you people are to keep those absentee ballots sealed. I’m surprised you haven’t had them burned yet like your election judge did in Mower County about seven years ago in the Grace Schwab election.
What’s more interesting to me is how the press isn’t interested in finding out what those absentee ballots have to say. Especially considering how they all spent countless dollars to conduct their own Florida recount (only to find, of course, that George W. Bush did indeed beat Algore). It will be interesting to see whether some enterprising young journalist will hop on the bandwagon and make the same request.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:45 AM
“This request does not seek to have the undersigned open or unseal any absentee ballot envelopes; to the extent any such envelopes have not yet been opened, the undersigned requests that an election judge do so.â€
Does the brief cite a statute or precedent that requires an election judge to open such ballots?
June 9th, 2009 at 6:55 AM
[...] caucus, doesn’t get enough work. Clearly, he’s got enough time on his hands to work on publicity stunts for his blog: Starting today, I will be filing data practices request for copies of the front side of all [...]
June 9th, 2009 at 8:02 AM
D., your were right, it came directly from the poop shoot.
Hiram, Why would the election judge be looking for a legal precedent sh he can refuse to open the ballot, when the law allows him to do so?
I would hope that any election judge would be willing to correct the mistakes that have happened during the vote count.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:01 AM
The whole point is that while there is a possibility of getting a copy of the front side of the envelope. There is no possibility of getting the envelopes opened because the ballots enclosed are not public information until opened.
This is a pure stunt I’m sure planned as such with no hope of full success. There is nothing that says a county must take action to change the status of a non-public document (the sealed ballot) to a public document. The reason it was planned this way is because it has become obvious that pre-election polls showing Franken winning the absentee voters by double digits probably understated the case.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:32 AM
“Why would the election judge be looking for a legal precedent sh he can refuse to open the ballot, when the law allows him to do so?”
I have no idea. It’s the court that needs some legal authority in order to do something. The law allows people to do lots of stuff which for whatever reason they choose not to do.
“I would hope that any election judge would be willing to correct the mistakes that have happened during the vote count.”
I would too, but I think that’s out of their hands right now. The case is in the Supreme Court at the moment.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Jude,
Huh? If pre-election polls showed Franken winning absentee voters by double digits, then why is Norm fighting to open the ballots? He’s not just fighting in this “stunt” — to use your words. It’s the basis of his court case. Somehow I’m suspicious of the defensiveness of you and others on Team Franken to keep these ballots sealed. I’m surprised they haven’t been burned yet.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:58 AM
“If pre-election polls showed Franken winning absentee voters by double digits, then why is Norm fighting to open the ballots?”
Because he is behind, and he hopes the unopened ballots will trend in his favor. They are all he has got.
I think it’s the sense of a lot of observers that the hard to count ballots trend toward Franken. That’s because of the general rule that Democrats are more likely to have trouble voting than Republicans. So troubled ballots are more likely to be Democrat ballots. That’s the practical reason why Republicans generally favor less aggressive vote counting and Democrats favor more aggressive vote counting. And that’s why recounts, which tend to count more hard to count votes that are initially not counted tend to favor Democrats. The key for Republicans in any recount of a close election is to shut down the recount as early as possible, e.g. Florida 2000.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:01 PM
This tendency for troubled ballots to skew Democratic tends to out-weigh whether they come from Republican areas.
The question isn’t so much why Norm wants to count these ballots (they represent his only hope, however frail) as it is why Franken doesn’t want to count them. The answer to that is obvious of course. He is ahead, so stopping the count is in his interest. But I think if those votes were counted he would probably still win, and probably increase his margin. Maybe he would be in the sentate by now.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Hiram, the tendency for voter fraud to skew Democratic outweighs the tendency for troubled ballots to skew Democratic.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:36 PM
“the tendency for voter fraud to skew Democratic outweighs the tendency for troubled ballots to skew Democratic.”
Another factor in Franken’s favor, I suppose. But actually, I think that with respect to voter fraud in absentee ballots generally, I think the fraud skews Republican. I think more Republicans vote absentee illegally than Democrats. That’s why Republicans more eagerly solicit absentee ballots than Democrats. But within the set of absentee ballots, the subset of problematic ballots tend to skew Democrat.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Cris
I am not defensive about it. I would have no problem if these ballots were to be opened and counted. If only for the fun of it.
I’d really like to know how many rejected absentee ballots there were for each county, How many of them arrived late, How many of the people whose ballots were rejected ended up having their vote counted and I’d love this data by county. That information is probably appropriate for a data request by the way.
I did not suggest Norm was engaged in a stunt. It is this data request that I called a stunt, because it is one and transparently so. That Norm thinks he even has a 1% shot at changing this outcome, makes it somewhat understandable that he would pursue it.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Hey Jude,
Fair enough — and I agree with you that I hope these ballots are accounted for. If not during the court case, after and by the press.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:24 PM
[...] MDE EXCLUSIVE: DATA PRACTICES REQUESTS FILED TODAY REQUESTING COPIES OF CERTAIN REJECTED ABSENTEE BA… | [...]
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 AM
[...] I wonder where KSTP came up with this idea? Oh, yes…MDE. [...]
June 25th, 2009 at 12:59 PM
[...] want to update the dedicated readers of Minnesota Democrats Exposed on the status of my data practices request for the front side of all ballots relative to the 2008 U.S. Senate general election contained [...]