Minnesota Ballot High-Jinks: One Man's Story
Meet Dennis Peterson, a retired engineering consultant from the Democratic stronghold of St. Louis County, Minnesota, whose absentee ballot was rejected through an apparent clerical error. He voted for Al Franken, and he's now a plaintiff in the new class-action lawsuit from 64 Minnesotans who are seeking to get their votes counted.
Peterson lives in a Democratic bastion, he's donated to Dem state legislative candidates, and he's attended the local Democratic caucuses. It turns out the Coleman campaign vetoed the inclusion of his ballot, under the state Supreme Court's controversial decision to give both campaigns this power over wrongly-rejected ballot envelopes.
"St. Louis County was heavily Democratic. They probably tried to reject every ballot they could," Peterson told Election Central, as he's worked to figure out his situation. "And they had two months to research this thing, so they could probably figure out who was a Democrat."
And likewise, Team Franken had an obvious incentive to track him down and help him.
In late October, Peterson drove 50 miles from his rural home to the courthouse. He submitted an absentee ballot application, then on the spot was given an absentee ballot that he then filled in and handed right back. "Part of the reason I did that was to make sure I did it right," Peterson explained to us.
But this past weekend, Peterson says, he was contacted by the Franken campaign and informed that his vote was never counted, and they invited him to join in as a plaintiff on the class-action lawsuit. "I didn't bother to ask them how they knew I probably voted for them," said Peterson, "though I did tell them off the bat that I did."
The county later told Peterson that the rejection of his ballot had been a clerical error. When the Coleman campaign vetoed Peterson's ballot, their stated reason was that they didn't think his signature was genuine. Peterson finds this baffling: "I had my signature signed in front of the deputy registrar, and I had just showed her my driver's license. This was not a reasonable objection."
So let's ponder this: When the wrongly-rejected absentees ballots were being sorted through, how much did the Coleman and Franken camps know about the votes that they were shooting down? How many problems did the state Supreme Court create by giving the campaigns this power?
And looking further ahead, Coleman also has a list of about 650 rejected envelopes that he wants to be put into the count, and which the local officials around the state still insist should be kept out. Just how much info does he have about those people? And what does the Franken camp know about their own list of rejected ballots, which they're prepared to fight for if it comes to this?
We often say that every vote counts. But this race teaches us that when an election happens in which every vote truly does count, we're all in trouble.
One possibility I see here is for the court to appoint a special Master to examine the disputed absentee ballots and make his own determination. It will be very difficult for either side to try to change their minds on ballots they've already agreed to accept, but both sides have a significant number that the other side rejected. It wouldn't be that big of a job for the Master to examine these and come to a determination in a relatively short period of time.
January 15, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is all the outrage over the seemingly lack of a "secret ballot"? Opponents of EFCA seem to think that a secret ballot is the foundation of a democratic society. How come people aren't angry over the fact that Franken and Coleman both seem to know who individual voters voted for?
January 15, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The secret ballot is a substantial pillar of a democratic society. The ballot envelope has the name of the voter, but when envelopes are opened, ballots are combined with the others before counting so you can't tell who they voted for. Normally the secrecy is preserved.
In this case he's donated to Democratic candidates, and participated in Democratic caucuses. The same is probably true for a lot of the votes Coleman wants counted. The ballot might be secret, but it's no mystery who they voted for.
January 15, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard MN Secretary of State Ritchie on public radio a couple weeks ago, and he said the same thing mans_best_friend says above, that both campaigns have large databases based on their extensive voter outreach, door knocking, etc.
January 15, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the essence of the GOTV strategy - you know where your votes are and you make sure you get them out.
January 15, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is it that candidates are privy to the ballots and voting info in the first place? That's the sole responsibility of the election departments at the city, county and state levels. I don't believe a candidate for any political office has a reason to know whom I cast my ballot for in the just past election or what my voting history actually is. All a candidate needs to know is the counts for, against, and undetermined. The specifics are the election departments problems to work out.
January 15, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Voting rolls and logs are public records. Anyone can get access to them, and that's as it should be. Transparency is important. They don't contain information on who you voted for - just that you're registered and voted. However, both parties maintain extensive databases as part of the GOTV effort. Through canvassing and voter contact they know who their likely voters are.
January 15, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarifications--When I was reading the blog above, my thinking was similar to what CT's was.
January 15, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks
January 15, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody who's ever volunteered for a campaign knows this. I've been a door-knocker, a phone canvasser and a poll-watcher. In each case, I was given a list of all the registered Democrats in the area I was covering. In Obama's case, they also had a list of Republicans and independents who had indicated they would vote for him (usually people who had donated to the campaign).
An example of how this works, when I'm a poll-watcher, if the poll workers tell someone they're not allowed to vote, I check my list. If the person was on my list as a potential Obama voter, I would help them get it sorted out so they could vote. If they weren't on my list, I kept my mouth shut. A Republican didn't get to vote? Too bad, so sad.
January 15, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice Page had it exactly right in his dissent from the Minnesota Supreme Court decision: letting the campaigns have a say in which absentee ballots would be counted was just asking for mischief.
The proper thing to do (IMO) would have been for all the absentee ballots that were considered to be improperly excluded to be put before the same committee that adjudicated the disputed ballots in the recount.
January 15, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
> The bottom line is that even an honest, well-run election system is not 100 percent accurate. It may be well over 99 percent, and most of the mistakes my be random and largely offsetting; but it is not 100 percent, and when the election is close enough, we are indeed in trouble. I learned that first-hand in 1982 helping to monitor a paper ballot recount in Russ Feingold's first state legislative election, and we all were reminded of it in Florida/2000, although that one wasn't all that close to fully "honest and well-run". And guess what -- there is no easy fix. In a close enough election, there can alwys be trouble. Occasionally, revotes have proved to be the only answer.
January 15, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Ken D
A "re-vote" would not necessarily ensure perfection for the simple reason that "to error is human". Who knows whether or not a re-vote might produce a new set of "problems". Minnesota election law is not designed to ensure "perfection" but rather a set of procedures that are the MOST LIKELY to help ensure that the election results represent "voter intent". The 2008 recount has help identify several systemic problems within Minnesota's election law and there will be a series of forums where county election officials and other citizens will be afforded the opportunity for input for improvements that as I understand will be used by the Secretary of States Office in formulating recommendations for improving Minnesota election laws.
Presently, there is no provision for a re-vote; probably because re-vote is not view as a workable means address address contest election results. Problems with re-voting include "cost"; "voter drop off" and re-voting with necessarily address any problems that might lead to the call for a "re-vote"
January 15, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a bit confiused by the Franken camp's action here. I would think that minimizing litigation so Franken can get seated would be more important than litigating for more ballots at this point.
January 15, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pre-emptive. They can easilly drop their complaints when the courts find against Coleman on his own lawsuits
January 15, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but this is not a "Franken" complaint, it is a class-action lawsuit that they are setting in motion. The interests of the class (having their votes counted) may quickly become at odds with the Franken campaign's interests (having Franken seated). If this is the case, whoever class counsel is simply cannot simply ignore their clients' interests. Thus, Franken's new attack dog snaps its leash. Then what? I am certain I'm missing something here. I just don't know what.
January 15, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
A special court will meet within three weeks to consider an "election contest" by Norm Coleman and Al Franken's counter-claims.
This court will consider if more Rejected Absentee Ballots should be included.
If another 65 ballots mostly for Franken are approved by another court, that will help Franken by expanding his lead.
January 15, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant 64 ballots.
January 15, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken needs to aggressively protect his lead in case Coleman gets a ruling in his favor.
January 15, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shochu, a few points:
1. In the MN Supreme Court decision that allowed the two campaigns to have say in whether or not to count an absentee ballot that the County Canvassing Board had determined was rejected erroneously, the Justices sought to prevent the campaigns from abusing that power by providing that a campaign would be subject to court imposed sanctions, such as fines, other penalties, etc., if the court, hearing an election contest brought by a voter whose ballot was wrongfully rejected (seeking to have that ballot counted) concluded that the applicable campaign had rejected that voter's absentee ballot without cause. The dissent ridiculed this to some extent -- the abusive campaign is only slapped if somebody bothers to bring a suit, which is by no means certain, and then the sanction does nothing to rectify all the ballots improperly rejected who don't bother to file suit. But MN law provide for voters to contest the rejection of hteir ballots after the final vote is certified, and that's what this suit is about.
2. In this case, Franken can be assumed to have a fair degree of certainty that these 64 ballots included votes for him. If more plaintiffs join the class, it is theoretically possible that Coleman will benefit, which seems to be the thrust of your concern. But Franken did much better with absentee voters than Coleman did because of Democratic GOTV efforts, etc., so it is likely, absent cherrypicking, that counting all of the improperly rejected ballots would help Franken.
3. The suit will result in 64 more votes for Franken, and may also give the MN courts the opportunity to impose some nice harsh sanctions on the Coleman campaign for abusing the process, which would not happen if this suit had not been brought.
Bottom line: MN state law -- and the specific process contemplated by the MN Supreme Court in its terrible decision allowing each campaign to veto ballots that the county canvassing boards determine had been erroneously rejected -- contemplated that exactly this type of suit might be filed, and would provide the platform for keeping the campaigns honest in exercising thatveto right. This suit will put those principles to the test. So worry not about the election -- Franken's victory will be upheld soon enough -- rather, enjoy the fact that the hammer is about to drop on the assholes in the Coleman campaign who have been playing politics with the most fundamental right that exists in a democracy -- the right to vote. They asked for it, now they are going to get it.
January 16, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
OT but now that Clinton has said goodbye to the Senate, who wants to start a pool NY has a new Senator by Friday COB? Surely the Gov. has made up his mind by now.
January 15, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say 5:01 p.m. Friday except that means the news gets buried over a four-day holiday weekend.
Noon maybe?
January 15, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was the majority's reasoning? I promise to go off and read the decision in a minute, but damn that's some piss poor jurisprudence..,(Not really a phrase one gets to use too often...).
January 16, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink