Coleman Camp Launches Last-Minute Effort To Undo Franken's 48-Vote Lead
It simply doesn't end in Minnesota. Just as the state canvassing board was meeting this morning to review and perhaps even approve the new vote totals showing Al Franken ahead by 48 votes, the Coleman campaign put forward a new maneuver to try to undo the lead -- or to at least buy time.
Coleman's lawyer Tony Trimble said the campaign wanted to re-argue 16 decisions on disputed ballots that the board had ruled on last week, plus they alleged that 34 ballots for which the challenges had been withdrawn were then wrongly allocated, giving an illegitimate boost to Franken. Note that 16 plus 34 equals 50 -- so if they were to somehow sweep this whole set of arguments, they would just manage to undo Franken's current 48-vote edge.
The board is now recessed, planning to come back in a little while and look at those 16 ballots the Coleman camp wants to reargue. But this also means the Franken campaign will have their own turn at rearguing the disputed ballots where they didn't like the calls -- which will come up at the board's next meeting on December 30...
Late Update: And it didn't work. The board just looked at all 16 ballots, and in all 16 cases declined to take any further action like the Coleman camp wanted. So don't expect the Franken camp to fire back, as lead attorney Marc Elias indicated they didn't want to do so but were prepared to compete. Just to make sure, Dem Sec. of State Mark Ritchie said on the board's behalf that they're not interested in this coming up again.
Late Late Update: The board has now ended their meeting for the day. The 48-vote lead is not yet set in stone, though, as both campaigns have alleged clerical errors in the awarding of some of the ballots. (The Franken camp has listed just a tiny fraction compared to the Coleman campaign's 34 ballots.) That should all be checked again and hopefully resolved by the next meeting on December 30.
I don't understand the duplicate count issue, and have not had time to review. Could someone explain it to me and if it is legitimate or a changing factor in more votes for Coleman? Thanks.
December 23, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
When voters cast their votes on election day, some ballots could not be read by the scanner so they received duplicate ballots which were then cast and later counted.
However, during the recount, each vote was hand counted (no scanners used) so they counted the original ballots and ignored the duplicates.
Coleman is alleging that they counted *both* duplicates and originals for Franken. He has zero proof of this however. In fact, there has not been a single case of where there were more votes than voters so the notion that some votes counted twice simply doesn't wash.
But that's his latest Hail Mary.
December 23, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This also applies to some absentee and overseas ballots which were mailed with creases (which would jam the scanners) or which were emailed and printed on plain paper (the scanner requires heavier stock).
December 23, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much.
December 23, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think Coleman has a good argument. I believe these are mainly absentee ballots that were folded or otherwise rendered unable to be machine-read. Standard practice is for election judges to make a duplicate to feed into the counter. The duplicates are supposed to be marked as such and kept with the original and in many precincts this wasn't done. Since the number of ballots in those precincts is larger than the number who voted it seems pretty clear that in at least some cases, both the original and duplicate were counted.
However, the numbers involved pale in comparison with the number of wrongly-rejected absentee ballots, and I don't see any winning argument as to why these should not be counted. The MN-Supremes said as much.
December 23, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, you got proof that vote counts exceed voters, or are you just taking Coleman's word for it?
December 23, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any proof of anything? All we have is what the parties are claiming.
December 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your side made the accusation, not us.
December 23, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My SIDE??
All righty, then.
December 23, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have to remember that, if the shoe was on the other foot, we'd be advocating a lot of what Coleman is doing. He has a right to check to see if those votes were double-counted. It looks like they weren't, but that's for the board to decide.
If Franken were behind be 50, he'd be doing the same thing.
December 23, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's OK, Coleman can do what he's gotta do.
But now he's BEHIND.
Franken now has the higher claim of self-righteousness.
And even Ginsberg will have to pull a rabbit out of his ass to change that.
December 23, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. Franken WAS behind and he wasn't resorting to frivolous challenges to give him an imaginary lead or just making shit up to slow down the count. He didn't come out and insult all of the election judges at the beginning of this thing, either.
Is it getting kinda spinny in here or is it me?
December 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No you allege that you think. Since Coleman has no integrity you argue in a circle. Better hope that we never meet.
December 23, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could if I had the time. Since I don't, I recommend reading Nate Silver's article on it. It's quite informative, and really shows how Coleman is pretty much running on empty with the issue.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/franken-to-coleman-wheres-beef.html
December 23, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
December 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the statute on how many times a candidate can appeal the canvassing board's decisions? This has to be at least the 3rd time some of these ballots have been ruled upon by the same people. By allowing review of review of review, they can drag this out for years.
December 23, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that the most annoyed people are those reviewers. This part of the process is almost finished. It's pretty much all over but the flailing about in the courts.
December 23, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that like saying I've finished all but the last 25 miles of a marathon?
December 23, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily. Remember what happened in Washington state. Ultimately the recount favored Gregoire, the Democrat, who got the job, albeit with a delayed start.
At a certain point, the state elections board will give the seat to somebody, likely Franken. It will then be up to Franken to fight any lawsuits while simultaneously vindicating his election through his conduct in office.
December 23, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Nate's original prediction at 538 was Franken by 27, so I've been expecting a drop in Franken's numbers. . .
December 23, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
We already knew that Coleman was sleazy; now we also know that he's desperate and more than a little idiotic (apologies to our own beloved Idiotic).
December 23, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman will continue fighting, appealing, filing disputes, lawsuits until the State ends it. He will not concede because it is too close now.
I am interested by the final count of the 1600 which should only take a few hours at the most to hand count and reconcile.
December 23, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't get the case for the duplicate counting. I mean, if the whole reason for making duplicate ballots is that the originals could not be mechanically counted, how do you then make the case that the originals were somehow counted?
December 23, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
at least some counting was done by hand. including every one that was challenged.
December 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a hand recount.
Both campaigns agreed to count the originals instead of the duplicates before the recount.
December 23, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point is: Aren't both ballots clearly marked at the time the dup. is created? It would take a reallllly bad "clerical error" to count both, if so, esp. since the number of duplicates is generally very small and they would presumably be counted extra carefully.
December 23, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're supposed to be clearly marked and clipped together, just as you suggested, but there are originals where the duplicate can't be found and the counts don't match. Coleman is claiming that the missing duplicates weren't marked and got lumped in with the originals, which leads to the "double-counting" claim. Franken is claiming that there are other explanations for the discrepancies but these, frankly, seem like a stretch. Mistakes like this happen all the time, but you only find them when elections are close and everything is gone over with a magnifying glass.
December 23, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should be, but apparently that didn't always happen. There are some ballots (50 or so, I think) marked "Original" for which there is no corresponding ballot marked "Duplicate". Coleman claims that means the unmarked duplicate is already part of the count, and that the original should not be counted to avoid counting the vote twice. Franken has produced affidavits from at least two poll workers attesting that they forgot to make duplicates. Thus, at least some of the "Original" ballots have no corresponding duplicate because none was ever made, and not counting the original would mean throwing out a legitimate vote.
The burden of proof is on Coleman to provide evidence that ballots have been counted twice, and I don't believe he has done that. (If that happened, then the number of ballots should exceed the number of voters on the sign-in sheets, or whatever would be the equivalent for the absentee ballots, so it shouldn't be too terribly hard to provide some evidence if Coleman is correct.)
December 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if this isn't the right place to mention this (I'm sure it isn't) but I can't find a better one.
Your site now has among the most annoying popover ads on the Internet. Please reconsider the types of ads you accept and how they might interfere with a good experience for your readers.
December 23, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Circuit City ad was awful. I also understand revenue, but when you are trying to click on a story and the CC ad jumps in the way, that is very annoying.
December 23, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad someone else is complaining. I've written to TPM twice now about those ads. I hope you will too. And some ads use a HUGE amount of processing cycles so even typing in a comment can get slowed down in addition to trying to open other windows etc.
Why use/allow obnoxious ads?
December 23, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Down with the CC ad!
I'm going over to Kos until CC finishes going bankrupt.
December 23, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get Mozilla Firefox and install the Flashblock plug-in.
December 23, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have Firefox. Where do you find the Flashblock plug-in?
December 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
AdBlock Plus on Firefox. Yer' my hero jzap!
:-)
December 23, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ads? What ads? :-)))
December 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to go back to Firefox and AdBlock-it just doesn't work on my Mac. Is it the Mac vs a PC? No clue, but I really miss it, especially Jeteye.
December 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are versions for Mac OS X.
December 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to go back to Firefox and AdBlock-it just doesn't work on my Mac. Is it the Mac vs a PC? No clue, but I really miss it, especially Jeteye.
December 23, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
AdBlock Plus...
December 23, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I use a program called NoScript. It seems fairly effective. It also works on Macs.
December 23, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're both among the very few plugins I consider essential in Firefox.
December 23, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I will do that then!
December 23, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone who really wants a good look at wingnuttery, Minnesota-style, browse through the comments appended to the Strib story. Some of these people are barely coherent, and unable to either spell or form complete sentences - or even nearly complete, in some instances.
Linky goodness:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36630334.html
December 23, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is only one scenario left for Coleman, that is where the 1600 or so wrongly discarded absentee ballots get counted, and they break to Coleman by more than 50 votes. Ironic isn't it that Coleman is fighting to have those ballots disqualified. Just as ironic is the fact that Franken is fighting to have them counted, when they could possibly hand the seat to Coleman.
A politician with less integrity than Franken would have quietly dropped that request, or, switched over to the Coleman side once it became clear that he could win without them. A politician with more integrity than Coleman would have been with Franken in getting them included since the beginning, obviously Coleman is worried not about everyone getting their vote counted, but only about whether or not the votes that get counted will favor him. Any vote that doesn't favor him, he wants thrown out. What a snake.
December 23, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an insult to snakes everywhere, just as calling Quimby an empty suit is an insult to clothing everywhere.
December 23, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been reading the Strib comments everyday for that sweet schadenfreude.
~
December 23, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink