Still More Ballots In Minnesota, As Franken Camp Ratchets Up PR Push
Here's still more new info suggesting that the outcome of the Al Franken race is still impossible to predict.
It's looking like there could be even more wrongly-rejected absentee ballots from across the state than anyone had guessed, potentially even 2,000 of them, based on numbers from some key counties. It's the kind of big number that could increase the pressure on the state canvassing board to rule in favor of re-admitting those votes at tomorrow's much-anticipated meeting, rather than kick it to the courts.
If those votes were counted, it would probably provide a big boost to Franken in light of pre-election polls that showed him disproportionately winning the absentees overall. So tomorrow's state canvassing board hearing, which will determine that exact question, could very well decide the race.
The Franken campaign is upping the intensity of its PR campaign going into that meeting, announcing in a briefing just now with reporters that they're supplying to the board not only written affidavits of voters whose ballots were wrongly rejected, but also a copy of that new Web video featuring emotional on-camera testimonials. The drama just never stops with this one.
This is crazy!
Everyone should check the pockets of their laundry, and under the cushions of the couch for MN ballots.
December 11, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! I think I found envelope #1 under my car seat!
December 11, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
" It's the kind of big number that could increase the pressure on the state canvassing board..."
I looked up "big number," .08% (8% of 1%) doesn't qualify.
December 11, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Big" is a relative term, depending on the circumstances and the basis of comparison.
In an election where the margin is this close, 1,000-2,000 uncounted ballots is a big number.
December 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
..don't mind him, he's still smarting over the fact that McCain and the Alaskan Sanjaya got their asses handed to them on election day. :)
December 11, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly...I've moved on to "Blagojegate"...it's much more entertaining.
December 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
BlagoSphere?
December 11, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easily entertained, aren't you?
Oh, and is another "-" gate the best you can come up with? Surely with a Serbian name like Blagojavech there are better choices!
Oh, wait. You're a conservative, aren't you? You're required to suppress both your imagination and your conscience at the door before entering.
December 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not look at this as a scandal, but as an opportunity - an opportunity to forever retire the hackneyed "-gate" suffix. From now on, let us signify scandal by affixing the suffix "-jevitch" to all acts of public corruption and/or hypocrisy!
All in favor...
December 11, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye!
December 11, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye-jevitch!
December 11, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol
December 11, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
..whatever you have to tell yourself scooter..
December 11, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
another example of Wally's petulance and temper getting the better of any latent vestigial rational process remaining in that shallow pan of a devolved brain of hers
denial equals atrophy, Sargie
December 11, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha...a new fan.
December 11, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, in a race that's within 200 votes, 2000 ballots would it a 1000% difference. I'd say that's a pretty big number.
December 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think SFCWallace knows that 2000 votes is big in this circumstance, but doesn't like the facts so he/she wants to pretend things are different by comparing to the wrong number (the total ballots rather than the difference between Franken and Cole).
--Ron
December 11, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's being the smart ass that he is.
Right, SFC?
December 11, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like the dumbass he is, if you ask me.
And yes, I know you didn't...
December 11, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually like SFC. Really. We probably disagree on every issue that comes along, but at least he makes an attempt to engage, rather than the nonsensical stylings for, say, tellmemore....
December 11, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks CT, I like you too and we don't disagree on everything, we both agreed that I spelled "ass" right, one time.
December 11, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is still one of the funniest comments I've ever read.
December 11, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second CTVoter here about SFCWallace.
December 11, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ. Can't the state just decide to suck it up and pay for a new election? This cluster@#$% just gets worse every day.
December 11, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second.
December 11, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
New election won't solve a thing. Why wouldn't it be just as close now but with a different dynamic since the vote will be much less at a special election. Finish the process
December 11, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, let it play out according to MN rules.
Sorta ironic though that if they had GA rules it might be settled by now with a run-off not including the 3rd party guy.
Any idea how those votes might have theoretically broken in a run-off?
December 11, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
In an Exit Poll, Dean Barkely took slightly more votes from Al Franken.
December 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's rare for the top 2 in a statewide election to finish within .5%.
So a re-vote might give us something different.
Dean Barkley wouldn't be in a runoff, and so that could make it less close.
MN law doesn't call for a re-vote, but it should. The winner of the recount will be considered illegitimate by half the state.
December 11, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why wouldn't it be just as close now but with a different dynamic since the vote will be much less at a special election."
Because Obama's infuence wouldn't be there. If they ran it over Coleman wins by 10 points. Look at the numbers with Saxby in GA. There's no way Franken allows a re-vote.
December 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Georgia is a red state so the comparison isn't apt. Jim Martin never had a real chance to win GA; the heavy turnout of black voters and the third-party candidate is what kept it close.
MN is a whole 'nother ball of wax. It's not a conservative state and they have high turnout anyway. Also, most of the third-party voters would go for Franken. Al would win by 2-3 points in a run-off.
December 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if you're aware of this but there are currently two big political stories in Minnesota:
1. The Senate recount.
2. A record state budget deficit, currently estimated at around $5 billion and climbing.
December 11, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
" I'm sure Pawlenty will find plenty of fat to cut like education and snow-plowing."
That's it! Close school and make the kids shovel snow!
December 11, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wouldn't be too far out of the realm of possibility for him. Poor ole Tim "No Tax Increases" Pawlenty has no tobacco fund to raid from anymore (he burnt that up just prior to his Governor run) to try to balance the budget with so maybe he'll create some new "service fees". Either that or he'll cut education funding again so our city and county property taxes increase with education referendums.
December 11, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that a new election would make the cluster=*(
I am afraid that the die is already cast, as it were. We are stuck with this mess until every last disputable element of this mess has been disputed and adjudicated.
December 11, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
December 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear, it appears that most of my post was truncated. It seems to me that there are only two outcomes that could emerge from a second election: 1) the second vote is just as ambiguous or 2) the second vote is much clearer. If 1, then we have two messes instead of just the one we have now. How is that an improvement? On the other hand, if 2, then the loser of the second election will challenge the legitimacy of that second election in court, trying to get the "legitimate" (i.e. first) election re-instated, which means that the whole fiasco still gets tied up in court longer than Jarndyce v Jarndyce.
December 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
700 billion.
Now that's a big number.
December 11, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second!
December 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concur.
$700 plus billion and no oversight on how it is being handed out!
The banks and AIG should be nationalized and sold off in pieces.
Then there is Chrysler. The owner, Cerebus, is begging for a handout but refuses to provide their balance sheet. Again, the company should be nationalized and sold off. The government should hand Cerebus one dollar for the company. Jeep should still be worth something.
December 11, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not for nationalizing and selling off...I am for allowing the auto guys to enter bankruptcy and the banks that can't stay afloat to fail. Does anyone think that the auto industry will disappear? They'll be back in business the next day, re-negotiating labor deals and contracts and banks that don't fail will buy up the assets of the ones that do. In a few years the market will be back where it was and we'll be stacking the cards back up for the next crisis.
December 11, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see why the erroneously rejected ballots should not be counted. The ballot was "cast" by being mailed and received. That they were not counted initially should not rule them out from being counted in a RECOUNT of valid ballots.
The target article clearly says:
counted and cast are manifestly different.
December 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
slight revision:
The ballot was "cast" by being received.
Some absentee ballots are handed in. If not subject to the formal rejection criteria, the ballot should be considered as validly cast.
December 11, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who vote-by-mail cast their ballots when they put them in the mailbox.
It's absurd how the writer of the linked article questions if absentee ballots rejected by clerical error were ever cast.
December 11, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly. In many states, a postmark is not sufficient. The ballot must arrive in a timely fashion. So I'd say "cast" requires receipt by the election office, and "valid" means on time with the t's crossed and the i's dotted unless capitalized. :-)
Maybe you were joking...
December 11, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how they could refuse to count any ballot that was filled out correctly and mailed on time, just because an election official screwed up and mistakenly put it on the reject pile the first time around. I have to believe that a judge will order it if the canvassing board doesn't have enough sense to.
December 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I had been willing to give Minnesota a pass when it comes to electoral errors figuring there are errors in every election and the number of disputed paper ballots and lost ballots seemed relatively minor. But 2000 of the 10,000 rejected absentee ballots may been have attributable to beaurocratic error? Isn't that an incredibly high number. One out of five rejections wasn't for the reasons enumerated in the statute? How could this happen?
December 11, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes you wonder about other ballot errors, huh!!
And I wonder how many of the "properly rejected" ballots were submitted by legit registered voters who simply didn't follow complicated directions exactly but did not overvote or vote on the wrong ballot etc. I realize that one must draw a line at some point, but bureaucratic marginalizing of marginal but legit voters is anti-democratic.
I'd like to see a study of this done by an independent party (separate from this particular election issue).
December 11, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a lot of cases, voters simply didn't sign their names on the envelope.
Those people should be allowed to sign now, but it's going to take a judge's order.
December 11, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think thats true. Isn't the failure to sign one of the enumerated reasons for rejecting a ballot - therefore the improperly rejected ballots wouldn't include any of those.
December 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, those ballots were rejected properly and allowing people to sign for them now after the election is illegal. There's already a SCOTUS decision in Roe v Alabama saying that changing criteria for absentee ballots after a state election is a violation of due process.
There's still no excuse for knowingly ignoring legitimate ballots.
December 11, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't changing the criteria to let voters who didn't sign now sign.
The envelope has to have a signature before it's opened.
December 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think you're right. Allowing a voter to correct a purely technical error is not changing the rules.
In fact in some election this year I recall that voters were contacted and allowed to correct or update their info. Then the ballot was accepted. I believe it was in the stink about registrations being rejected, and the office responsible contacted a pile of voters to let them know.
I do think it might take a judge's order, but it could be the right thing to do, to give the voter a chance to correct a mistake or to prove the voter is legit even if the t's were not all dotted, so to speak.
I wonder if Franken's people are pushing this too, or if they are being wimps and just hoping that the 2K or so improperly rejected ballots get counted correctly.
December 11, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is changing the rules, technical or not. Assuming the rules were universally applied you can't retroactively validate ballots that were legitimately disqualified the first time around. Again, Roe v Alabama is the prevailing case here - the situation is even extremely similar. A state election won by a 200-300 vote margin would be overturned if 1000-2000 disputed absentee ballots were included. The ballots were rejected because of failure to include an affidavit that was notarized or signed by two witnesses. That's a technical problem. SCOTUS ruling concludes that retroactively affecting the requirement implicates fundamental fairness rules: "...failing to exclude the contested absentee ballots will constitute a post-election departure from previous practice in Alabama. This departure would have two effects that implicate fundamental fairness and the propriety of the two elections at issue. First, counting ballots that were not previously counted would dilute the votes of those voters who met the requirements of section 17-10-7 as well as those voters who actually went to the polls on election day. Second, the change in the rules after the election would have the effect of disenfranchising those who would have voted but for the inconvenience imposed by the notarization/witness requirement." (Section II, Roe I)
The only way around that court case is if Eric Jaffa is right in the post below about the rules not universally being applied and therefore counting the ballots not being a substantive departure from previous practice.
December 11, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, allowing a voter to remedy a technical defect is not the same as counting all defective ballots. Your version errs on the side of exclusion of legitimate voters, for no good reason (I don't consider bureaucratic nightmares a good reason). What you cited from that decision does not go to the point at issue here. Your cite doesn't mention allowing voters to remedy the defect. I would agree that unremedied ballots should NOT be counted, for the same or similar reasons given in your post.
Is there a statutory time limit on defect remediation? Not that I know of. Is defect remediation allowed generally? Absolutely yes. Absent a time limit, all voters whose ballots were rejected should be notified (or at least sent notification) and given a chance at remedy. Of course once the recount is officially finished, that will be a de facto time limit for practical purposes.
December 11, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The case has nothing to do with counting all defective ballots, it only addressed ballots that were not properly certified by the voter. The Alabama case addressed ballots lacking witness signatures or notarization; the Minnesota corollary would be ballots lacking the voter's signature. If it were proper to remedy voter certification of a ballot post election day, surely the Roe class in this case could have just petitioned to have that opportunity. (Although your point is well taken, I don't know of any case that directly addresses post election defect remedy.) Yes, this excludes people who were legitimate voters but cast illegitimate votes. Yes, they should universally have been given an opportunity to remedy. No, I don't like excluding legitimate voters. It's not my version - if it were I would certainly allow these voters to certify their ballots.
I think the more important problem is getting legitimately certified absentee ballots that were improperly discarded into the count. Those ballots don't even need remedy, they are legal as it stands and only thrown out on bureaucratic error. It's also more realistic to hope for that - people don't like hearing that even if they do everything right someone else can mess up their vote for them.
December 11, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarification. You say "discarded", but I think you mean "rejected" -- discarded might be another kettle of fish here, like the 133 missing ballots may have been discarded (and Franken argues the original count should be used if they are not found)!
And I agree that those (erroneously/improperly rejected) are the easy ones. That was my first point. My follow up aimed to discuss the more marginal ballots and issues.
Thanks for the chat!
December 11, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that it was the statute says.
The problem is that some counties contacted people who voted-by-mail and let them come in and sign. Other counties didn't.
Unless people in every county get the same second-chance to sign, there is a violation of the "Equal Protection" clause of the US Constitution.
December 11, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're right about different counties contacting people then perhaps there is a second chance but for an equal protection claim I think you'd have to argue that the difference was geographically discriminatory which isn't very strong considering there is no geographical protected class. You're better off with a due process claim that some people who did not sign ballots detrimentally relied on the premise that all counties had the same no contact policy and had they been contacted they would have corrected the error.
December 11, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a disparate impact on a protected class is needed:
Ramsey County is one of the counties which didn't inform voters about issues with their absentee ballots, and that county has more blacks than the state overall.
December 13, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have not heard one single explanation for what the "administrative errors" were that caused these ballots to be rejected.
Anybody????
December 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ONLY Reason Norm Coleman Has Kept it Close
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=4858
December 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Al Franken race? Wasn't there at least one other person involved? ;^}
December 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink