Coleman Campaign Still Denying There Are Missing Ballots
The never-ending Minnesota recount has taken a turn into the truly surreal: The Coleman campaign is still denying that those 133 missing ballots exist at all, even though city officials have pinpointed the exact envelope the ballots were in!
"The decision by a senior member of the secretary of state's office, as well as the secretary of state himself, to insist there are missing ballots when there are any number of other plausible scenarios is disappointing," Coleman spokesman Luke Friedrich told the Star Tribune, adding that officials should not be "just accepting the political spin of the Franken campaign."
Actually, we do know that the ballots exist -- Minneapolis officials have explained that this precinct placed their votes in envelopes numbered "1 of 5," "2 of 5," etc., but the "1" envelope is gone and the city officials have given up on finding it after an exhaustive search. The rub here is that if the loss of the envelope is not somehow compensated for in this deep-blue precinct, Al Franken would lose a net 46 votes -- quite possibly enough to flip the result to Coleman.
This latest legal mess is only just beginning. As we reported on Friday, the state has the option of defaulting back to the Election Night count for this particular precinct, effectively undoing the loss. The Coleman campaign seems to be gearing up to oppose such a move, and the state should probably be preparing for a lawsuit over this issue no matter which call they make.
Funny how, even in supposedly "blue" Minnesota, election discrepancies never seem to favor Democrats, wingnuts' constant complaining about Dem ballot stuffing notwithstanding.
This stinks to high heaven.
December 9, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, I agree.
December 9, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also agree. If Franken is the certified winner of the recount, and he gets credentialed and sat by the Senate, would that preclude any lawsuit from moving forward? Or would Schumer's committee have to have a specific vote on the Minnesota debacle?
December 9, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
One would think, john, that if he was certified the winner any lawsuit would be void = there would be no cause of action because the question would be settled.
But that's just my opinion - I really don't know the answer to your question.
December 9, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's such a shame that they can't just have a re-vote. On the other hand, now that they aren't actively searching for that missing envelope, now there's more of a chance it'll turn up (Murphy's twelfth law?)
December 9, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, ABQ's getting snow! On Dec. 9th! Pretty cool.
December 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The election was in November. This is December.
Calling the recount, "The never-ending Minnesota recount..." will help those who want to see this end without a lawsuit over the rejected absentee ballots (a lawsuit which may be needed to get every vote counted which should be.)
December 9, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hat this "never ending recount" nonsense. Other than the missing ballots, challenged ballots, and the issue of wrongly rejected absentee ballots, it is over, and it ended right on schedule. Our state just handed counted almost three million votes and only one envelope went missing, but somehow we're all screwed up.
December 9, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The statement by Coleman's flack that "there are any number of other plausible scenarios" to account for the discrepancy is, of course, implausible. He suggested that double counting or people registering but leaving before they voted were among the alternative explanations. Registrations plus absentees totalled 2,029 for the precinct; the election night tape recorded 2,028 ballots (with 2,026 votes for president, 1,965 for senator). One of five envelopes from the precinct delivered to the warehouse on election night, contained 133 ballots, a city worker signed in all five, and now its missing. It happens.
Accusing Secretary of State Ritchie of 'just accepting Franken's political spin' is in keeping with the lying liars' narrative about Ritchie (he's partisan, he's associated with ACORN, he's a communist). Ritchie was simply pointing to Minnesota legal precedents for going with the election night count if votes turned up missing in the canvass. That call, ultimately, will be made by the entire canvassing board, and Ritchie is just one of five members. I have a lot of confidence in the integrity of the board members.
December 9, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute did the Coleman camp make a McCarthy/Nixon type of accusation saying that Ritchie is a Communist and basically anti-American for being part of the process that does not favor Coleman?
Hmmm....a communist wow haven't seen this kind of smear effort since the 70's when this kind of stuff might have stuck.
This is the GOP DNA....
December 9, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
An NRSC pre-recount backgrounder said that the CPUSA 'wrote encouragingly of his candidacy' for SOS. (TPM and others noted this).
Politico then reported that Ritchie had been accused of being a former communist.
A Fox News 'analyst' followed up by referring to Ritchie as 'a communist, a former member of the communist party.'
December 9, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It took about fifty years before Robert Caro conclusively established the truth about how LBJ stole the 1948 Texas Senate election (Box number 13.) The truth was KNOWN, but thanks the Abe Fortas' brilliant lawyering and LBJ's superb skill at lying, there was enough obstruction and obfuscation to keep the lid on.
If Coleman is re-elected due to this missing envelope, it will constitute a mystery as deep and perhaps more insoluble. Minnesota has nowhere near the degree of chicanery and cheating---nowadays---of many other states. Seventy or eighty years ago, or a hundred and more years ago, it was a different story . . .
Franken's campaign thinks an accurate, objective resolution of disputed (challenged) ballots, combined with counting the missing votes based on the election-night tape, will make Al a Senator by four votes . . . possibly more, as in their review of the disputed ballots Al's lawyers tried to discount their own bias. This does NOT take into account the hundreds of IMPROPERLY REJECTED absentee ballots (some from overseas military personnel) which the Franken side is confident will go in Al's favor, if counted. Anyway, this is what they are saying.
If, however, the Canvassing Board declares Coleman the winner, it is UNLIKELY the Senate would refuse to accept Norm back. In recent history, any incumbent is welcome back, no matter how tainted, narrow, or questionable his or her re-election, REGARDLESS of party affiliation. And the chicken-hearted Dem leaders in the Senate, fearing a "backlash," are unlikely to go to bat for a polarizing figure like Al Franken. Any hope of Al finally emerging as Senator depends on the canvassing board (one of whose members is a former law partner of Gov. Pawlenty) and/or the courts.
December 9, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for the "never-ending recount" meme---that's the tune the Thugs want to hear.
Back in 1962, the last really close statewide recount in Minnesota, the race wasn't settled until March. And that was when the Republican candidate (in retrospective, the "good guy" in that contest) decided not to go to court following the certification in favor of the DFL'er.
In that race, lots of otherwise valid votes were tossed out because of a provision in state law which said that any ballot marked with both "x's" and "check marks" was invalid. I thought that part of the state law was later revised, but I'm not a lawyer and not positive.
December 9, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is really moot if the rest of the recount ends up being outside of 46 votes either way. Frankly, I think this is the way a judge would see it too and only take it under advisement if the election is within that 46 vote window. If it is within that 46 vote window, I would have a hard time seeing how a judge would rule other than accepting the original count, giving the election to Frankin.
December 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding this precinct that the number "1" envelope is missing.
Is there a legal way to invalidate all the precinct voting; envelopes 1 through 5 and have the precinct vote again.
Indeed it may prove that more or maybe even less people vote from the precinct this time around; but, the point is for representation of the district to be acknowledge so less vote or more votes does not go against the grain of the purpose.
December 9, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink