« JACOBS BLASTS FRANKEN | Home | GOVERNOR PAWLENTY’S VIDEO MESSAGE ON SPENDING ACCOUNTABILTY AMENDMENT »
Ritchie Window Dressing On Absentees Won`t Change Broken System
By Luke Hellier | November 13, 2009
Republican Party of Minnesota: Ritchie Window Dressing On Absentees Won`t Change Broken System
St. Paul- Republican Party of Minnesota of Chairman Tony Sutton today issued the following statement regarding Mark Ritchie’s announcement that he is proposing a new design for absentee ballots.
“Today’s window dressing from Mark Ritchie can’t change the fact that Minnesota’s absentee ballot system remains broken.  As the chief election official in the state, Ritchie failed to properly train local election officials but he refuses to accept any responsibility for his total lack of leadership. As a result of Ritchie’s unacceptable failure to properly train local election officials, Minnesotans have been subject to appalling disparities in how absentee ballots are counted across the state. Redesigning absentee ballots is not enough to change a broken system. Replacing Mark Ritchie in November 2010 is the only way to restore public confidence in the office of secretary of state.”
-30-
Topics: Uncategorized | 37 Comments »
37 Responses to “Ritchie Window Dressing On Absentees Won`t Change Broken System”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“Redesigning absentee ballot envelopes and instructions is a common-sense solution that helps to eliminate errors voters typically make that result in their ballots being rejected.”
The problem wasn’t that faulty ballots were rejected, it’s that faulty ballots were accepted by untrained election judges.
Improving instructions for voters is fine, but where faulty ballots will always be a problem. What is Ritchie doing to make sure that judges don’t count faulty ballots.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
This response it to be expected from the Party of No.
Is it enough? Probably not. Is it a start? Yes. Is it better than nothing? Yes. Does it do any harm? No.
I wonder what Fat Tony thinks of Pawlenty’s veto of the bills that would have overhauled parts of the state’s election law last year?
Honestly, is Ritchie or any other Democrat were to say “I love kittens and puppies,” Tony Sutton would probably disagree just to disagree.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
AC/Bob/InTheLoop
In case you haven’t noticed, more that a year has passed since the 2008 election, and now the 2009 election is over.
Is it a start? Yes, but it should have happened months ago. Ritchie was perfectly okay with sticking his head in the sand until KSTP did a report showing how badly he f*cked up.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
AC:
Keep in mind I can understand while the courts were discussing the Franken Coleman case that he might not make a proposal. But issues were raised and in a lot of cases the panel that ruled on the election ballots said that is an issue for the courts.
They were also issues for the Secretary of State to deal with. I remember one time seeing Mark Ritchie having an email or web post how his staff was running around proposing election changes. Isn’t it amazing after a screwed up system was used to allow Franken to steal the election that Ritchie didn’t find any need to propose reforms. These reforms at a minimum should’ve been proposed after the election was over.
This once again demonstrates how unqualified Mark Ritchie is to be our Secretary of State.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 14th, 2009 at 11:16 am
AC,
If we know what the problems were in the 2008 election, why are we screwing around with proposals that, in your own words, aren’t enough to fix the problems?
I’ve asked Hector this question that I’m going to ask you. What was in the election bill that had to do with absentee ballot reform? I’m not aware of any provisions in the election bill vetoed by Pawlenty that had to do with absentee ballots.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Here is a link to the election reform bill which was vetoed by the governor:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1331.4.html&session=ls86
Several provisions deal with absentee ballot issues.
Personally, I didn’t see any urgency for dealing with specific absentee ballot issues during the last legislative session. The recount litigation was still going on as the session concluded, and it would have made a certain amount of sense to me, at least, to wait on these issues until the 2008 senatorial election dispute was resolved. There will time during the next session to deal with these issues if the legislature is so inclined.
If some Republican legislators have a specific proposal on absentee ballot reform, and indicate a willingness to support the election reform bill if such proposals are included, allowing the legislature to override the governor’s veto, I am pretty sure they would get a hearing from the DFL leadership.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“The problem wasn’t that faulty ballots were rejected, it’s that faulty ballots were accepted by untrained election judges.”
I think there were two problems, at least.
1. That there were faulty ballots, that is Minnesota voters who were otherwise acting in good faith, had difficulties in casting their ballots in compliance with state law.
2. That faulty ballots were improperly counted.
Secretary of State Ritchie’s action the other day addressed the first of those two issues. My immediate question is whether the Republican Party has any objection to what the SOS had done, that is, simplifying the ballots to make it easier for voters to comply with state law?
I do understand that the SOS’s action did not adresss the second issue, and that Republicans will object to that. I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that the SOS has finished dealing with all the issues of the 2008 campaign, and I know I would be interested in any specific proposals Republicans choose to make, particularly any they are willing to put in the form of legislation. I know I am very willing to give a lot of consideration to Republican proposals in this area if in return, they are willing to support the election bill as a whole.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“I am very willing to give a lot of consideration to Republican proposals in this area if in return, they are willing to support the election bill as a whole.”
So as long as Republicans support he poison pills added to the bill by Democrats, you’ll support the Republican proposals?
Why do you need to throw the problems with absentee ballots into a larger bill in order to support it?
November 14th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
“So as long as Republicans support he poison pills added to the bill by Democrats, you’ll support the Republican proposals?”
The governor, in his veto message, had two specific objections. He had concerns about exit polling provisions, and he didn’t like moving the primary date. I couldn’t care less about exit pollsters, and because of changes in federal law, the primary date is almost certainly going to be moved. If there were other provisions the Republicans didn’t like, they weren’t listed in the veto message.
“Why do you need to throw the problems with absentee ballots into a larger bill in order to support it?”
Because that seems to make getting an election reform bill through. I think what Republicans are or may be asking for here, is somewhat beneficial to them, so I think Democrats should get something in return.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
It’s interesting to me that Sutton didn’t criticize Ritchie for poor absentee ballot design, something Ritchie was clearly responsible for, and something that could well have been a significant contributing factor to the problems in the 2008 election.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Hiram, what is wrong with the current design?
The ballot design has nothing to do with judges who were not trained to follow the law.
“Because that seems to make getting an election reform bill through. I think what Republicans are or may be asking for here, is somewhat beneficial to them, so I think Democrats should get something in return.”
If it’s broke, fix it. It’s sad that it would have to come to partisan deal making.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Hector,
I agree with you 100%. Ritchie has made changes to ballot design and voter registration cards that should be more heavily scrutinized. For example, he’s changed language on voter registration cards which discussed the fact that only U.S. citizens are allowed to register to vote.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
P.S. Hector,
Why should election bills be scrutinized for what the GOP or DFL gets out of them? Shouldn’t our elections be carried out in a manner that’s judged honest and fair by the electorate in general and not have to worry about the Republicans getting something out of absentee ballot reforms so we have to give the DFL something in return? That’s how we got here in the first place.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“What is wrong with the current design?”
Apparently a lot of people had trouble filling it out. That helps to explain what I am sure we can both agree is an unacceptably high number of faulty ballots.
“Why should election bills be scrutinized for what the GOP or DFL gets out of them?”
Because each party has an interest that such bills treat them fairly.
“Shouldn’t our elections be carried out in a manner that’s judged honest and fair by the electorate in general and not have to worry about the Republicans getting something out of absentee ballot reforms so we have to give the DFL something in return?”
I don’t think the governor saw things that way when he vetoed the election bill. Just between you and me, I don’t think the governor had much of a problem with what was in the election bill. His problem was with what wasn’t in the bill, that is, voter ID. If Democrats, as I think they might be, are willing to include absentee ballot reform into the election bill, I think that would be more than generous, because I don’t think Democrats have all that much to gain if the bill passes in it’s current form.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Hector,
I thought Democrats and Republicans were supposed to be acting in the best interest of the people of Minnesota and not in the interests of partisanship. Frankly, election bills should be passed for what’s in the interest of fairness and integrity not for what’s in the interests of the DFL.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:57 am
If that were totally true, at his press conference, Sutton would have applauded Ritchie’s proposed measures to reduce the number of faulty absentee ballots, and would have had specific proposals to address other issues.
The Republican policy drive here seems to be to search out and eliminate the counting of ballots cast by voters in good faith, because of some technical mistake.
The Democratic policy drive here seems to be identify and eliminate technical problems in the casting of absentee ballots, so that voters in good faith can have their votes counted.
Which view do you think is more consistent with the interests of fairness and integrity?
November 15th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Hector,
I shouldn’t drink coffee when I’m reading your comments like #16 above. I almost choked!
The Democratic party’s drive is to count improper absentee ballots in DFL strongholds like Minneapolis and St. Paul and have the same improper absentee ballots rejected in the rest of the state. That’s exactly what Al Franken did and he won the election because he was successful in his legal efforts to count ballots in DFL strongholds that were rejected in GOP areas — particularly in rural Minnesota. So don’t lecture me about righteousness and fairness.
Frankly, I don’t care if someone came to vote in good faith or bad faith. What I care about is having a process that’s consistent and fair. Clearly, the absentee ballot process wasn’t implemented consistently and nobody can judge the results as fair. Would Al Franken have still won regardless of how the absentee ballots were counted? Perhaps. Would Norm Coleman have won? Maybe. We frankly don’t know. But the bottom line is that our absentee ballot process is broken and Mark Ritchie and the DFL don’t seem to care much because they got the result they wanted in the 08 Senate race.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“The Democratic party’s drive is to count improper absentee ballots in DFL strongholds like Minneapolis and St. Paul and have the same improper absentee ballots rejected in the rest of the state.”
I don’t think it was. In the recount, it was the policy of Democrats to count absentee ballots as much as possible throughout the state. After the recount was completed, and Franken emerged with a lead, then the policy was to accept the recount tally which made perfect sense because the recount tally favored Franken.
The prevailing trend here is that problematic ballots favor Democrats, and that’s true even when they come from Republican areas. That’s the practical reason why I am always in favor of the aggressive counting of votes everywhere throughout the recount phase.
“I don’t care if someone came to vote in good faith or bad faith. What I care about is having a process that’s consistent and fair.:
There is nothing fair about an eligible voter not having his vote counted. Nor is there anything fair about applying some idea of consistency which requires that a voters vote be rejected just because a similar vote was rejected somewhere else.
“But the bottom line is that our absentee ballot process is broken and Mark Ritchie and the DFL don’t seem to care much because they got the result they wanted in the 08 Senate race.”
I am waiting for proposals. What specifically does Sutton have in mind and when will he translate it into legislation? Given where the election reform bill is in the legislative process, he may very be able to get reform of the absentee ballot process. But does he want that, or does he just want to hold partisan press conferences during which he takes potshots at Mark Ritchie, while attacking the legitimacy of an election process in which both Democrats and Republicans participate equally?
November 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“I don’t think it was. In the recount, it was the policy of Democrats to count absentee ballots as much as possible throughout the state.”
Yes it was, Hiram. But why are Democrats setting policy that is outside of the law? And why was their policy of counting illegal ballots more successul in left leaning areas, than right leaning areas?
November 15th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“But why are Democrats setting policy that is outside of the law?”
I think I misspoke here. Let me rephrase. It is the policy of Democrats to advocate for or to encourage aggressive vote counting. The actual counting of votes is done by election judges, who are members of both parties, and who are bound by the law, not party policy.
“And why was their policy of counting illegal ballots more successful in left leaning areas, than right leaning areas?”
To some degree Democrats were successful in both. I think what you want me to say is that the vote counters in left leaning areas leaned Democratic. But election judges are from both parties everywhere. As much as anything, I think it’s hard for election judges to reject votes, even when the ballot envelopes have technical problems.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
There is a de facto presumption that votes are valid and should be counted. Even Republican spokespeople like Sutton are influenced by that when they complain that voters were disenfranchised. Let’s remember, it was the position of Norm Coleman and the Republican Party during the recount position that those noncomplying absentee ballots should be counted, not that they shouldn’t. And in taking that position, I think to some extent, they were taking the moral high ground on this issue, one usually occupied by Democrats.
Both parties switched positions on the counting of absentee ballots. Al Franken won and Norm Coleman lost, not because not because of the relative merits of their arguments, but because of the timing of when they made their arguments.
One lesson that the history of recent recounts has taught us, is that the stage that matters and is decisive in subsequent proceedings is the counting stage. That was just as true in Minnesota in 2008-09 as it was in Florida in 2000. Unless the guy with fewer votes at the end of the recount can prove fraud, something Norm Coleman never even alleged in subsequent litigation, he will almost certainly lose.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
“Let me rephrase. It is the policy of Democrats to advocate for or to encourage aggressive vote counting.”
Which includes counting votes that clearly non valid under Minnesota law. (See KSTP 5 news report)
“Even Republican spokespeople like Sutton are influenced by that when they complain that voters were disenfranchised.”
When illegal votes are counted, all legal voters are disenfranchised. That’s a logical certainty that is overlooked.
“Let’s remember, it was the position of Norm Coleman and the Republican Party during the recount position that those noncomplying absentee ballots should be counted, not that they shouldn’t.”
The position of the Coleman legal team, was that if certain types of invalid ballots were to count in some precints, they should count in all precincts. You’re right in that Team Coleman dropped the ball in the timing of their arguements.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Franken* won, Coleman lost. That is not going to change. The fact remains is that widespread mistakes were maked by election judges in the 2008 campaign. Republcans wish to address those changes, while Democrats, want to play lets make a deal.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Hector quit lying. We had that clear case where a Franken observer objected and since it required both sides to agree to a ballot wouldn’t count since the Franken observer saw based on the witness that the ballot was going to be a Coleman vote.
Furthermore the reason why the Republicans were holding the press conference they want a fair process and a Sectretary of State who does his job properly. Two things we don’t have right now!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Hiram,
The bottom line is that the law requires absentee ballots to be properly filled out in order to be counted. Unfortunately, improper absentee ballots are routinely counted in heavy-DFL precincts and rejected in GOP and rural areas. The process needs reformed so that all absentee ballots are treated in the same manner. Walter Hanson is right that Franken’s strategy was to object to all improper absentee ballots in GOP areas while asking that the same kind of improper absentee ballots be counted in heavy DFL areas.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Which includes counting votes that clearly non valid under Minnesota law.
The election judges, two Republicans, and two Democrats ruled to the contrary.
“When illegal votes are counted, all legal voters are disenfranchised. That’s a logical certainty that is overlooked.”
The election judges ruled they were legal. Norm Coleman was the one arguing before the court that votes election judges had rule illegal should be counted.
“The position of the Coleman legal team, was that if certain types of invalid ballots were to count in some precints, they should count in all precincts.”
And how did that work out for them?
“The fact remains is that widespread mistakes were maked by election judges in the 2008 campaign. Republcans wish to address those changes, while Democrats, want to play lets make a deal.”
One thing you can say for certain is that mistakes are always widespread.
“Furthermore the reason why the Republicans were holding the press conference they want a fair process and a Sectretary of State who does his job properly.”
Sutton seems to have little to say about the process which is that election judges, two Democrats and two Republicans review the ballots. I am open to any suggestions as to how the process can be made fairer. Maybe we should turn the counting over to a DFL Secretary of State entirely. Does that strike anyone as fair?
“The bottom line is that the law requires absentee ballots to be properly filled out in order to be counted. Unfortunately, improper absentee ballots are routinely counted in heavy-DFL precincts and rejected in GOP and rural areas.”
No, the bottom line is that election judges (two Democrats and two Republicans) ruled the way they did and the courts uniformly accepted their decisions, as happened in Florida and as was entirely predictable.
As for proposals for reform, I am open to them. Sutton, for one, missed an excellent opportunity the other day to make them but there is still plenty of time before the next election.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Hiram,
You sure put a lot of faith in the rulings of election judges. They are not the arbiters of the law, the courts are. And the Minnesota Supreme Court didn’t rule that the election judges were correct in their application of the absentee ballots. The court ruled that there wasn’t a judicial remedy to un-count ballots which had been previously counted.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:53 am
“You sure put a lot of faith in the rulings of election judges.”
I do actually, but what matters is that the courts put a lot of faith in the rulings of election judges. They aren’t arbiters of law, they are something which, as it turns out, is a lot more important; they are finders of fact.
“The court ruled that there wasn’t a judicial remedy to un-count ballots which had been previously counted.”
Sure, there just weren’t judicial remedies available, and I have been saying that in different ways. The 2008 senate race was decided on the counting level, and absent fraud, courts are just not going to overturn what the counters do. That’s the lesson Democrats learned from Florida 2000, and Republicans learned too, just not quite so well.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
chris..
Qiut crying. Your boy lost fair and square.
What’s your point, only put “faith” in those that agree with your position?
Come on… man up, admit defeat, and move on.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
chris..
Quit crying. Your boy lost fair and square.
What’s your point, only put “faith†in those that agree with your position?
Come on… man up, admit defeat, and move on.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
damnbrone,
You are a meathead: dead from the neck up. My comments have nothing to do with Coleman’s defeat. They have to do with setting up a process that’s judged to be fair and neutral. It’s clear to any thinking person that the process in the 2008 election with respect to absentee ballots was not fair. It’s amazing that you would defend counting improper absentee ballots in heavy DFL areas and excluding the same improper absentee ballots in GOP and rural areas. Then again, I wouldn’t expect anything less from a shill for the liberal wing of the DFL.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
chris..
Calling me a shill for the liberal wing of the DFL suggests that there is a moderate wing of the DFL. In fact, there is, and I am firmly planted in the moderate wing.
You once again have your facts wrong. Get with the program!
November 17th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
By the way, what’s your take on the conservative former Governor of Alaska? Will she receive your support in 2012?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Damnbrone,
Stop lying about your beliefs. You are not a moderate so don’t claim to be one.
As for Gov. Palin, she brings an energy and enthusiasm to the GOP and the conservative movement. Compare Palin to Joe Biden: Biden couldn’t even get 150 people to come to a free public forum in upstate New York during the 2009 special election. Palin will draw thousands of people at her coming book signings — including one at the Mall of America.
I don’t know whether she will be a candidate in 2012. But I’ll take her record of being the Governor of Alaska any day over Biden’s record of being Vice President and the administration’s point man for the $787 billion stimulus package and being wrong on Afghanistan.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Hey Danbrome:
What moderate wing does your party have? Michelle Bachman is protrayed as an extreme right winger because she’s prolife and believes for drilling for oil. Since it the policy of the Democrats to be prochoice and not to drill for oil that automatically makes them left wing extremist. Thus your party by the logic of how they attack people like Bachman and Palin makes people like you extreme left wing.
As for Palin bring her in. I was eager to support John Mccain once he nominated her. Furthermore she has star power which might have only been matched by Mr. Newt in his days as speaker.
Furthermore last year people were eager for change and thought Obama was it. Come 2012 John Mccain and his bad campaign team could easily win a ten point landslide against Obama. That means Sarah will be closer to twenty.
Keep in mind also despite the mainstream media trying to show how great the health care bill the public found out how bad they were and they were quoting proposed bill language to Congressman and Senators. With the mainstream media not able to make Palin a joke Obama won’t be able to attack her.
Furthermore and this is the reason why people in the left fear her not to mention some Republicans. She’s a true conservative who will bring in the voters who want a conservative agenda.
In one book she has talked about more policy and life experiences than Obama wrote about (maybe) in two books.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“Come 2012 John Mccain and his bad campaign team could easily win a ten point landslide against Obama. That means Sarah will be closer to twenty.”
Walter… this statement is absurd, sure to make even your fellow Republicans blush.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Damnbrone,
Yeah, and I guess the Democrats swept the 2009 elections too. Damnbrone = meathead.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Lets see.
1976 Carter got elected president with 51%. In 1980 he got just 41% of the vote and what kept the margin at 10% was an independent candidate who took 5% of the vote away from Reagan. Seems quite easy to happen.
Furthermore if you look at Virginia and New Jersey the margins in both states took a 20% point swing. Didn’t Obama win Virginia and make it Democrat with 54% of the vote. So how come Deeds the candidate he supported got basically 40% of the vote?
If Obama is so popular and his ideas why wasn’t the entire 250 plus house membership rushing to support the health care bill? Nancy had to make deals including an amendment that she didn’t want on the bill to get to 219.
I’m surprise you can type your lies so easily.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN