« MNGOP MEDIA ADVISORY | Home | RYBAK BLURS THE LINES WITH OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION »
MNGOP CALLS FOR FULL INVESTIGATION OF STATE ABSENTEE BALLOT PROCEDURES
By Luke Hellier | October 30, 2009
Republican Party of Minnesota Calls for Full Investigation of State Absentee Ballot Procedures
St. Paul- Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton and Deputy Chairman Michael Brodkorb today wrote the chair of the House State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee and the chair of the State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee to request a formal investigation into the state’s absentee ballot program based upon a KSTP television news report which outlined serious flaws with Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s administration of elections in Minnesota.
October 30, 2009
Chair Gene Pelowski Jr.
State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee
491 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul MN 55155
Chair Ann Rest
State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Capitol Building, Room 205
St. Paul MN 55155-1606
Dear Chair Pelowski and Chair Rest,
We are writing to request a formal investigation into the state’s absentee ballot program based upon a KSTP television news report of October 29, 2009 which outlined serious flaws with Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s administration of elections in Minnesota.
In his role as the chief of elections official for our state, Mr. Ritchie maintained to KSTP that there were no problems with the state’s absentee ballot program and he refused to acknowledge the glaring absentee ballot disparities which exist across the state and were referenced by local election officials in the KSTP investigation. At one point, Ritchie even blithely told the KSTP reporter, “You would have had to tell me to bring my glasses†after he was presented with a series of absentee ballots which were treated inconsistently by local election officials.
Mr. Ritchie’s failure to properly train local election officials is clear and it is unacceptable. In a state which has often served as a national model in fairness and transparency, Mr. Ritchie’s denials of obvious facts are deeply disconcerting. There is no question absentee ballots were treated differently across the state. This disparate treatment of voters must be addressed before another Minnesotan is unfairly disenfranchised before the next statewide election.
To restore public trust in our elections system, we believe it is essential for a full accounting of the procedures and policies of absentee ballots as administered by the Office of Secretary of State.
Sincerely,
Tony Sutton, Chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota
Michael Brodkorb, Deputy Chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota
Cc: All House State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections members; All Senate State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee members
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 47 Comments »
47 Responses to “MNGOP CALLS FOR FULL INVESTIGATION OF STATE ABSENTEE BALLOT PROCEDURES”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Tony and Mike are simply crybabies.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Liberal danbrome, is channel 5 a crybaby too?
Did you see the look on Mark Ritchies face when Mark Albert showed him the evidence of wide spread counting errors?
Ritchie and ACORN are simply cheaters.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:04 PM
These issues were adjudicated by the various appropriate authorities, and Ritchie wasn’t one of those authorities. Nor was he an election judge charged with accepting or rejecting ballots.
“Mr. Ritchie’s failure to properly train local election officials is clear and it is unacceptable.”
Is it? Were any of the election judges interviewed by KSTP asked about their training? If not, from this report how can we conclude that they weren’t properly trained. I can tell you that the election judge manual which would presumably form the basis of such training is pretty clear on issues related to absentee ballots. You can find the manual and read it for yourself if you google “Minnesota election judge manual”.
It would have been nice if Ritchie had been asked the questions Sutton and Brodkorb are sort of pretending were asked. It seems clear enough, training procedures for election judges should be improved, with specific attention paid to absentee ballot procedures.
Clearly the process was imperfect, but then the process will always be imperfect, no matter what the level of training.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I see liberal damnbrone has chimed in again. It’s pretty funny that he would call the GOP crybabies. I can’t tell you how many times brone’s cronies called George W. Bush’s presidency illegitimate after not only the 2000 election but also the 2004 election.
I do note, for Hector, that the 2000 Florida recount was heavily scrutinized after the fact and important election reforms were brought not only to Florida but to dozens of states. Even though no election will be perfect, it’s important to learn from the mistakes and not put our collective heads in the sand just because “your guy” won the election.
Whether intentional or not, there were many mistakes that were made in the recount. Just because there wasn’t a judicial remedy for those mistakes doesn’t mean our laws and election procedures shouldn’t be heavily scrutinized and improved for future elections.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Tony and Mike are simply crybabies.
And Mark Richie is a crook, and conspirator in the theft of an election.
Loved his line that each ballot “tells its own story”. Right. Check the box, that’s a vote. Squiggly lines nowhere near the box, not a vote. Pretty simple. No story there except a wasted ballot.
Criminal.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Hiram asks:
“Were any of the election judges interviewed by KSTP asked about their training?”
As a matter of fact KSTP did interview judges who admitted they were not trained properly.
You really stuck your foot in your mouth on that one Hiram.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:46 PM
“I do note, for Hector, that the 2000 Florida recount was heavily scrutinized after the fact and important election reforms were brought not only to Florida but to dozens of states.”
I am all for carefully scrutinizing the 2008 election and indeed all elections after the fact in order to improve the process. The letter makes two suggestions for improvement, better training and studying absentee voter procedures. I can support both of them, and if Sutton and Brodkorb are genuinely concerned with those issues, he might very find the DFL leadership willing to join him.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:56 PM
“As a matter of fact KSTP did interview judges who admitted they were not trained properly.”
But KSTP also said they were trained extensively. And the election judge manual discusses absentee ballot issues. But what I had in mind was really asking these folks about their training. Where did they go for it. What were the issues discussed. Had they been given copies of and had they read the manual. The charge against Ritchie was that they were inadequately trained and so I would have liked more information on the training that did occur.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Hiram, you need to watch the video again. The judges interviewed (which is what you were demanding) were not adequately trained for absentee ballots.
Did they have a manual? I hope so. Did they read it? Did they understand it? Apparently not, and that is the fault of Ritchie.
“The charge against Ritchie was that they were inadequately trained and so I would have liked more information on the training that did occur.”
Why does it matter. Whatever training they had failed. In Minneapolis, even the people who train the judges didn’t know what was going on. This was a problem that started at the state level.
Even Ritchie couldn’t answer questions, he responded with that BS about every ballot telling it’s own story. An absentee ballot is either filler out correctly or it isn’t.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:39 PM
“The judges interviewed (which is what you were demanding) were not adequately trained for absentee ballots.”
What I saw were people who seemed to be a little vague on what they were supposed to do. That certainly raises questions about training, some of which I have listed.
The manual is available on the internet. I would hope they have read it. But I suspect that there are certain natural limits on how much the election judge system can be approved. These seem to be mostly older people who have done it for years, and who aren’t that interested in changing their way of doing things.
Ritchie’s response was basically that the matter had been adjudicated. He isn’t an election judge and it isn’t for him to determine which ballots are valid particularly when that matter had already been decided by courts whose decisions he is obligated to enforce.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:40 AM
“What I saw were people who seemed to be a little vague on what they were supposed to do.”
Those judges didn’t know that absentee ballots should without signature should not be counted! One judge said they did not did not invalidate a single absentee ballot, because she wanted to give voters the benefit.
This is not about Coleman v. Franken*. Franken* won. This is about a flawed vote counting system. Ritchie was presented with examples of errors that occured and, rather than acknowledge those errors, he got snippy with the reporter.
The problems orignated with Ritchie and flowed down through county and city clerks to the feild judges. Making a manual available for judges is only one step, it’s up to Ritchie to make sure judges understand what’s in the manual. Ritchie failed to do that.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:16 AM
“Those judges didn’t know that absentee ballots should without signature should not be counted!”
Did anyone really say that? I think one guy came close, but these were people who were being subjected to a pointed interview, and what we saw of those interviews was a heavily edited interview. I kind of suspect that most election judges know that they should reject absentee ballots that don’t comply, for various reasons they simply didn’t. More a failure of will rather than training.
“This is not about Coleman v. Franken*. Franken* won.”
Absolutely true. It’s not a partisan issue. Election judges are both Republicans and Democrats. With a little patience I am sure Sutton and Brodkorb could have gotten the DFL leadership to join them at their press conference. I wonder if they tried.
“Ritchie was presented with examples of errors that occured and, rather than acknowledge those errors, he got snippy with the reporter.”
If asked, I would have hoped that Ritchie, like the other officials would have acknowledged that errors had occurred. But it’s not for him to question decisions made by courts.
“The problems orignated with Ritchie and flowed down through county and city clerks to the feild judges. Making a manual available for judges is only one step, it’s up to Ritchie to make sure judges understand what’s in the manual. Ritchie failed to do that.”
It’s not my impression that the problem originated with Ritchie, at least the KSTP report didn’t make that case. I would have liked to have heard more on the training issue. But I think most people have an understanding that absentee ballots that do not comply with legal requirements should be rejected. And none of those people interviewed struck me as fools. I thought you heard some of the real reasons the ballots were accepted during the course of the interview. The judges believed, and were perhaps even trained to believe to honor voter intent.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:20 AM
“This disparate treatment of voters must be addressed before another Minnesotan is unfairly disenfranchised before the next statewide election.”
This is an example of the Orwellian groupthink currently afflicting Republican leaders. Say what you will about the majesty of the rule of law, what Sutton and Brodkorb were advocating yesterday was the throwing out of votes cast by eligible electors whose intent clearly appeared on their ballots. They were demanding the disenfranchisement of voters based on legal technicalities.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:42 PM
“With a little patience I am sure Sutton and Brodkorb could have gotten the DFL leadership to join them at their press conference. I wonder if they tried.”
Why do the Republicans need to be joined by Democrats? Where the Democrats?
October 31st, 2009 at 3:01 PM
“Why do the Republicans need to be joined by Democrats?”
Because Democrats have large majorities in both houses of the legislature, and therefore nothing can get passed without substantial Democratic support.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Hector,
Do you really think the DFL majority in the legislature wants to change the process which counts votes less strict in heavily DFL areas like Minneapolis and St. Paul? Just the opposite, they favor instant run off voting which would almost guarantee permanent majorities.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:00 AM
P.S. Hector,
You seem to hold Mark Ritchie harmless for the mistakes. The fact that he wouldn’t even look at copies of the ballots in question indicates to me a reckless disregard for the facts.
Moreover, the Secretary of State is responsible for adequately training election judges. If Mark Ritchie doesn’t even care about the mistakes which clearly occurred, why do you think he’ll care about re-training election judges in the future?
November 1st, 2009 at 7:27 AM
“Because Democrats have large majorities in both houses of the legislature, and therefore nothing can get passed without substantial Democratic support.”
The problems that KSTP discovered in the last election is that current laws are not being followed. Mark Ritchie is the elected member of the executive branch who is responsible for enforcing those laws. It is up to him to acknowledge the mistakes and take corrective action.
At this point, I’ve heard nothing to suggest that Ritchie won’t run for re-election next year. If Ritchie doesn’t want to fix the problems, then we can vote someone else into office who will.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:35 AM
“Do you really think the DFL majority in the legislature wants to change the process which counts votes less strict in heavily DFL areas like Minneapolis and St. Paul?”
How do you know if you don’t ask? And I can tell you that putting the matter in partisan terms makes those concerns a lot easier to dismiss. This doesn’t need to be a partisan issue. If there is fault here, Republican election judges as well as Democratic election judges are to blame.
There are other election reform issues out there too. The legislature passed an election reform bill last session which was vetoed by the governor for only two specific reasons, it moved the primary date earlier in the season, which because of changes in federal election law, will almost certainly happen next with bipartisan support, and changes with respect to exit polling which I couldn’t imagine caring less about. If the Republican. With so few objections to the current bill, why not ask that provisions calling for better training for election judges be included in the bill next year in exchange for Republican support for the overall bill.
What is it you really want? Reform or the issue?
November 1st, 2009 at 7:46 AM
“You seem to hold Mark Ritchie harmless for the mistakes.”
Not entirely. But I am also much more interested in improving the process than finding someone to blame. Ritchie is being criticized for the possibly inadequate training of election officials. That wasn’t something he was asked about by the KSTP guy, and not something I know much about myself. My mostly uninformed guess, is that most election judges, including those interviewed, understand that ballots that do not follow the legal requirements should be rejected. In other words, it wasn’t a failure of training, it was a failure of will.
I think Ritchie’s looking at specific ballot issues is a matter of context. If Ritchie is being asked to question court decisions that held those ballots valid, he shouldn’t do that. It’s his job to follow the law and that includes the law of the case. However, in the context of improving the process going forward, I think looking at specific issues that came up during the most recent elections would be just fine.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Hector,
The court did not rule that there were not mistakes. The court did not find a judicial remedy to correct the mistakes. Mark Ritchie wasn’t asked about the court’s decision. I think it’s shocking that Mark Ritchie continues to maintain that there were no mistaken ballots and would not even look at the proof of ballots counted that should have been rejected.
Moreover, election judges go through training every election year — even if they have been election judges in the past. The Secretary of State’s Office puts out the election judge training materials. I’m not saying that Mark Ritchie’s office purposely trained Minneapolis and St. Paul election judges to count improper absentee ballots. What I think is shocking is that Ritchie won’t even ackowledge there is an issue here for future elections which he is responsible for adequate training. This problem is going to occur again and again until it is either corrected through the legislature or adequate proactive training by the Secretary of State’s Office.
I think this is almost an example of Mark Ritchie being derelict in his duty as Minnesota’s chief election’s officer. We cannot have a Secretary of State who puts his head in the sand over thousands of absentee ballots improperly counted in one location and properly rejected in another.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:30 AM
“The court did not rule that there were not mistakes. The court did not find a judicial remedy to correct the mistakes.”
Correct. So why are you asking Ritchie, a constitutional officer charged with enforcing the law to second guess what the courts did?
“Moreover, election judges go through training every election year — even if they have been election judges in the past.”
Than it sounds like Ritchie is doing his job, and seems to be at least inconsistent with the Sutton Brodkorb charge, “Mr. Ritchie’s failure to properly train local election officials is clear and it is unacceptable.”
“The Secretary of State’s Office puts out the election judge training materials.”
He does indeed and they are available online. I would hope they would form the basis of the pre-election training you describe. The materials do deal specifically with absentee ballot issues. But just because you tell people to do something, doesn’t mean that they will do it.
“What I think is shocking is that Ritchie won’t even acknowledge there is an issue here for future elections which he is responsible for adequate training.”
He didn’t acknowledge that because he wasn’t asked that. Really, it’s hard to imagine that anyone who followed the recount wouldn’t think the process could be improved. Maybe the reason the KSTP didn’t ask that was because the answer was self evident.
“This problem is going to occur again and again until it is either corrected through the legislature or adequate proactive training by the Secretary of State’s Office.”
I think you are right. While I think better training might help, I don’t think it’s a training issue. And if you listen to the election judges in the KSTP interview, whom I am sure were both Democrats and Republicans, I think you get a sense of why that is. They see it as their job to count ballots, not reject them. To give effect to voter intent. And with that mindset, it’s just very difficult to reject ballots simply because they fail to meet certain technical requirements, even though their training and the law might tell them they should.
They aren’t alone in dealing with this psychological problem. You notice how Sutton and Brodkorb above who are taking the legally correct position that technical legal provisions should be enforced, frame their argument as an enfranchisement, as opposed to what it is, and attempt to disenfranchise voters who may have simply made a mistake when filling out their absentee ballots.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Hector,
I’m not going to let you get away with giving Mark Ritchie a pass. It’s shocking to me that the chief election officer of the state would not even look at a ballot that was improperly counted and then has the balls to say that there was not any evidence of improperly counted ballots. Either Mark Ritchie is incompetent or he is a liar.
This is not about second guessing our courts’ rulings. This is about looking forward at future elections and solving a glaring problem. Mark Ritchie’s office is responsible for enforcing our state’s election laws and if he’s not getting the job done, he should find another.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:01 AM
P.S. Hector,
You said, “You notice how Sutton and Brodkorb above who are taking the legally correct position that technical legal provisions should be enforced, frame their argument as an enfranchisement, as opposed to what it is, and attempt to disenfranchise voters who may have simply made a mistake when filling out their absentee ballots.”
That’s bunk. What about the voters outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul and the inner suburbs who had their votes rejected because they ‘simply made a mistake when filling out their absentee ballots’? Al Franken, Mark Ritchie and the DFL didn’t give two shits about their disinfranchisement.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:22 AM
“I’m not going to let you get away with giving Mark Ritchie a pass.”
Feel free not to. But what’s the issue here. Improving our election process? Or bashing Ritchie? Right now is the time to review our election procedures and find ways to make them better, surely something we can all agree on. There will be plenty of time to campaign against Mark Ricthie next year.
“It’s shocking to me that the chief election officer of the state would not even look at a ballot that was improperly counted and then has the balls to say that there was not any evidence of improperly counted ballots.”
I think if you look at that KSTP piece again, you will find that Ritchie was not shown any ballots. But the fact is, ballots are improperly cast all the time. They were during Kiffmeyer’s time and they were during Ritchie’s time, and they will be during all future elections.
“This is about looking forward at future elections and solving a glaring problem.”
Let me be clear on this. If during the upcoming campaign, it is shown that Mark Ritchie did not conduct a full scale review of all the procedures and process employed during the 2008 election paying particular attention to the issues related to the recount, I will actively and vocally oppose Mark Ritchie’s re-election as secretary of state.
“What about the voters outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul and the inner suburbs who had their votes rejected because they ’simply made a mistake when filling out their absentee ballots’?”
They were disenfranchised and that’s what the Republican Party wanted them to be. Sutton and Brodkorb seem to making the argument that not counting their votes wasn’t wrong, but that it was right.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Hector,
Mark Ritchie was shown copies of ballots that were improperly counted. He refused to take a look at them. What’s worse, he maintained there was no evidence of ballots that should not have been counted. There was evidence and he refused to even look at that evidence. How can anyone say that Mark Ritchie is taking the issues from the 2008 recount seriously if he won’t even look at the ballots or acknowledge there was a problem?
We cannot have votes counted one way in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties and another way in the rest of the state. How can we have fair elections in our state when votes aren’t counted (or rejected) in a consistent manner?
I’m not here to defend the Minnesota GOP party. But I do note a glaring inconsistency between advocating for rejecting defective absentee ballots in GOP counties and advocating for counting the same kind of defective absentee ballots in heavy DFL precincts in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. That was the position of Al Franken’s campaign. The GOP wants a consistent standard applied around the state. If our process for absentee voting is too difficult (and maybe it is), then change the process to make it simpler. But don’t count defective absentee ballots in some counties and reject defective absentee ballots in others.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:21 PM
“Mark Ritchie was shown copies of ballots that were improperly counted. He refused to take a look at them.”
The reporter was a little sloppy, as is typical for KSTP, but I think if you listen carefully you would come to the conclusion that what Ritchie was offered were copies of the envelopes, not that ballots themselves, which almost surely not available to KSTP reporters, and wouldn’t show the irregularities KSTP is concerned about if they were.
“What’s worse, he maintained there was no evidence of ballots that should not have been counted.”
I don’t think he did say that, but if he did he was simply wrong.
“How can anyone say that Mark Ritchie is taking the issues from the 2008 recount seriously if he won’t even look at the ballots or acknowledge there was a problem?”
Again he wasn’t asked whether or not there were problems. There surely were, as with any election.
“We cannot have votes counted one way in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties and another way in the rest of the state. How can we have fair elections in our state when votes aren’t counted (or rejected) in a consistent manner?”
Well, we can and apparently we do. And by the way, fairness and consistency are not the same thing. It is perfectly possible to count the votes consistently in ways that are unfair. The reality is that when thousands of election officials are counting the votes across the state, they will never do it with anything like perfect consistency.
“The GOP wants a consistent standard applied around the state. If our process for absentee voting is too difficult (and maybe it is), then change the process to make it simpler.”
It has one. Again, I refer you to the election judge manual easily found using google. The problem seems to be in the application. As for suggestions going forward, I am all for improving the process. Among other things, I think the idea of early voting which would avoid just about all the difficulties associated with absentee ballots, should be considered. Curiously, early voting was something that was rejected by that study, the results of which were posted on this website.
The DFL legislature passed an election reform bill which according to the governor had only two things wrong with it. It moved up the primary date, which because of changes in federal law, both parties will probably accept, and tinkered with exit polling rules, which no one else cares about. If provisions reforming the absentee ballot process were included in the reform bill next session, would Republicans accept the bill?
November 1st, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Hector,
You’re right, Ritchie wouldn’t look at the envelopes which showed that absentee ballots were counted when they should not have been. Ritchie refuses to admit this fact and refuses to take responsibility for making sure election judges are trained so it doesn’t happen again. There is a clear pattern of election judges in Minneapolis and St. Paul (heavily DFL areas) accepting absentee ballots which should be rejected — and are rejected in the rest of the state.
Either come up with a better system of absentee balloting or count the votes the same way. Clearly, illegal absentee ballots were counted in Minneapolis and St. Paul that were rejected in the rest of the state. I’m sorry that appears to be acceptable to you.
November 1st, 2009 at 2:16 PM
“Ritchie wouldn’t look at the envelopes which showed that absentee ballots were counted when they should not have been.”
The court ruled they were valid. And it isn’t for a constitutional officer to question the court’s ruling.
“Ritchie refuses to admit this fact and refuses to take responsibility for making sure election judges are trained so it doesn’t happen again.”
Ritchie wasn’t asked about the training of election judges in the interview. If he had, I would have hoped he would say that the training will be updated to take into account issues that came up during the 2008 recount.
“There is a clear pattern of election judges in Minneapolis and St. Paul (heavily DFL areas) accepting absentee ballots which should be rejected — and are rejected in the rest of the state.”
Maybe, but Ritchie should be training all election judges the same way. Let’s remember that each precinct has election judges of both parties, and that if absentee ballots were improperly accepted, it was Republican election judges who accepted them.
“Either come up with a better system of absentee balloting or count the votes the same way.”
Well, come to the table and propose some improvements. I think early voting is an interesting suggestion. I believe that most absentee ballots are improperly cast, not because of technical issues related to the envelopes, but because the people who are casting them do not qualify as absentee voters because they are capable of going to the polls on election day. Is that acceptable or unacceptable to you?
In a perfect world, every vote would be legally cast by an eligible voter. But I don’t think we ever have or will ever reach that state of perfection. As long as we make reasonable efforts to make sure our elections are conducted fairly, the results, whatever they might are going to be acceptable to me. I have won close elections andd lost close elections, and win or lose, I have always accepted the outcome. I would never dream of attaching an asterisk to the prevailing candidate’s name, whether I voted for or against him, something of which I am moderately proud.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:06 PM
The court ruled they were valid. And it isn’t for a constitutional officer to question the court’s ruling.
Wrong again Hiram, the court that there wasn’t proof to say the errors were widespread or discriminatory. They were allowed to stand because the court said there was no way to uncount them.
And just because the courts allowed the ballots to count, that is no reason for a “constitutional officer” to ignore the mistakes that weren’t made.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Hector,
Chile is correct. The court ruled there was no judicial remedy to uncount ballots which were originally counted. I don’t agree with the court’s ruling, but I do accept the ruling.
This isn’t about re-litigating the Coleman/Franken recount. We do not know how the people voted whose ballots were improperly counted. What we do know is that there are precincts where “policy” says to count defective absentee ballots which are otherwise rejected by law around the state.
Mark Ritchie is the incumbent Secretary of State. It is his job to enforce state election laws and make sure that all precincts are enforcing the law as written. You seem to be a law and order guy when it comes to Pawlenty’s unallotting state programs. Why don’t you apply the same standard to Mark Ritchie and local election officials who are ignoring state laws with respect to absentee ballots.
You made an accusation that I don’t care about early absentee voting. In fact, I agree with you 100% that too many people vote absentee when they are in fact in their home precincts and able to vote. I have talked to several friends (both GOP and DFL) who are election judges and they hate having to validate and count numerous absentee ballots.
I’m not familiar with everything in the bill you mentioned which had passed this year. But since you appear to be familiar with the bill, let me ask what was in the bill with respect to reforming the absentee ballot process. If there was nothing in the bill to change and improve how we cast and count absentee ballots then the bill was a piece of garbage and Pawlenty was right to issue a veto.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:28 PM
P.S. Hector,
You said that as long as we make reasonable efforts to make sure our elections are conducted ‘fairly’ you’ll support the outcome. Do you think it’s fair that improper absentee ballots are counted in Minneapolis, St. Paul and the first ring suburbs but rejected in the rest of the state? Is that a fair outcome to you?
November 1st, 2009 at 3:33 PM
“the court that there wasn’t proof to say the errors were widespread or discriminatory. They were allowed to stand because the court said there was no way to uncount them.”
Same difference. The matter has been decided.
“And just because the courts allowed the ballots to count, that is no reason for a “constitutional officer†to ignore the mistakes that weren’t made.”
It isn’t a question of ignoring anything. The matter has been decided. Certainly Ritchie should review what happened during the election, he shouldn’t “ignore” it, and there is no evidence that has or will.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Hector,
No evidence Ritchie has ignored what happened during the election? I’d say the Channel 5 interview is plenty of evidence.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:55 PM
It makes me wonder whether Hector and others would have felt the same way if Minneapolis and St. Paul had rejected all of those absentee ballots and rural or suburban Minnesota had counted them. Somehow I think we would never hear the end of voter disenfranchisement.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:59 PM
P.S. Hector,
Mark Ritchie is a member of the Executive Branch, which is a co-equal branch of government to the Judicial Branch. He certainly has every right to issue an opinion about future absentee balloting even though the Minnesota Supreme Court has issued its ruling about the 2008 election. If that wasn’t the case, then Democrats in Congress should be arrested and put away for crticizing Bush v. Gore.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:09 PM
“It makes me wonder whether Hector and others would have felt the same way if Minneapolis and St. Paul had rejected all of those absentee ballots and rural or suburban Minnesota had counted them.”
I would have accepted the court’s decision, as I did when in some respects the situation was reversed in Florida in 2000. I have never put an asterisk after President Bush’s name.
“Somehow I think we would never hear the end of voter disenfranchisement.”
I am consistently in favor of enfranchisement. I say count the votes both in the cities and outstate. It’s Sutton and Brodkorb who are searching for reasons not to count votes, to disenfranchise voters.
“He certainly has every right to issue an opinion about future absentee balloting even though the Minnesota Supreme Court has issued its ruling about the 2008 election.”
The position of the Secretary of State’s office has been clear both prior to and after the election. Again, I refer you to the election judge manual. Ritchie can issue all the orders he wants, but they wouldn’t add anything in terms of legal effect to the manual he has already written.
I see nothing wrong in criticizing what happened in 2008. The recount exposed problems that have always been present in the absentee voting system. I think they should be studied, and I think a report should be issued by the Secretary of State’s office that ignores none of the very legitimate issues that have been raised. I would hope the appropriate changes are made in training, and if necessary changes in the law be recommended to the legislature.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Hector,
I have never put an asterisk behind Al Franken’s name. In some ways, Franken is going to be a great gift to the GOP.
And it’s not primarily Sutton and Brodkorb who are trying to disenfranchise voters. Let me remind you it was Al Franken’s lawyers who crafted the legal strategy to exclude defective absentee ballots counted in rural and suburban counties (that favor Republicans) at the same time advocating counting the defective absentee ballots in Minneapolis, St. Paul and the first ring suburbs that had already been counted.
Moreover, it was Norm Coleman’s campaign which went to court with the legal strategy to have all of the defective absentee ballots counted across the state. Al Franken’s strategy of disenfranchising voters won the day. I guess it’s not just Brodkorb and Sutton who are allegedly seeking to disenfranchise Minnesotans.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 AM
During the recount, each side adopted positions and sometimes reversed previously adopted positions in order to serve their short term political interests.
“it was Norm Coleman’s campaign which went to court with the legal strategy to have all of the defective absentee ballots counted across the state.”
That’s a good example. During the recount, Norm adopted a position that Republican leadership now opposes. But the election is over, and the issue now is what our policy is to be going forward. Am I correct in assuming that the policy of the Republican Party is the policy of Sutton and Brodkorb? Or is the policy the one Norm adopted during the heat of an election battle? That’s your call, not mine.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 AM
As I recall the sequence of events, on election night Norm wanted the process to be shut down. Al wanted to keep it open, asking for the recount to which he was entitled by statute. During the recount process, Al was consistently in favor of counting as many absentee ballots as possible throughout the state. This was controversial at the time, because the conventional wisdom has always been that absentee ballots skew Republican. But in the last few years a rival conventional wisdom has emerged to the effect that while absentee ballots may skew Republican, problematic absentee ballots skew Democratic and that’s true even in Republican areas. I think that proved to be the case in the 2008 recount.
After the votes had been counted, Al led Norm. At that point, the positions of the candidates reversed. Norm wanted more votes counted, and Al wanted the process concluded. Each position was a reversal, but each was consistent with their interests as events on the ground changed. But I don’t think either of those positions mattered to the courts. The courts saw the problem differently. They saw the election judges and recounters as fact finders. And if a process is seen by them fair, and the outcome is not unreasonable, the courts will not overturn the judgments of the fact finders. That’s essentially what happened in the 2009 recount. The Coleman forces were never able to persuade the courts that the recount was unfair. That’s what the list of factors in the court’s decision, the KSTP reporter described, really boils down to.
I know the response. But standards were different you will say. Yes they were, but they always are. In the nature of things there will be as many different standards of voting as there are vote counters. The arguments we hear about are merely those that it’s in someone’s interest to make. While the court may have noted that standards were different, what they ultimately held was that they were not different in a way that substantially affected fairness. They were not “discriminatory”.
This dispute was won and lost at the fact finder level. As happened in Florida in 2000, once the result was certified, there was very little likelihood that a court would overturn it. That’s a lesson apparently, the Democrats learned better than Republicans from the Florida recount, and it’s a lesson both parties must understand going forward.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:09 AM
“But the election is over, and the issue now is what our policy is to be going forward. ”
But then you follow it up with a post that goes back the election. If you’re going to be an idiot, at least be consistent.
You never put an asterisk next GWB? Big deal. Frankens himself spent the better part of this decade saying GWB stole the 2000 election.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 AM
“But then you follow it up with a post that goes back the election. If you’re going to be an idiot, at least be consistent.”
Not that I would ever claim to be consistent about anything, what happened in the past, is clearly in helping us how to move forward. I accepted the results of both the 2000 and 2008 elections, but both were flawed and both have much to teach us about the way election procedures can be improved.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 PM
After considerable thought, I think it’s safe to add both chile and chris to the official list of GOP crybabies.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Liberal danbrome, does pointing out election laws being violated make one a “crybaby.” If it does, then put me down on the list.
Speaking of real crybabies, what’s Assboy been up to. Still unemployed? Living back in the 5th?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 PM
I think it’s safe to add liberal brainwashed damnbrone to the official list of DFL meatheads.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Your weeping is becoming unbearable. have you given any thought to dropping your “sore loser” act and turn you thoughts to some more productive activities?
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 AM
“have you given any thought to dropping your “sore loser†act and turn you thoughts to some more productive activities?”
You mean like demanding the SOS run clean elections?