Coleman Camp: Count Every Vote -- All of Them
Now this is an interesting new gambit from the Coleman campaign. They're now calling for all 12,000 rejected absentee ballots -- regardless of whether the local officials think they were properly tossed based on state law -- to be counted.
Previously the Coleman campaign was only trying to put about 650 rejected envelopes into the count, which came almost entirely from precincts that he had carried in the election. If Coleman were to succeed at this latest move -- which at first glance looks unlikely, as it would require throwing out the state laws governing absentee ballots -- would it help him?
Intuitively, it would seem as if errors in filling out absentee ballots would make up a random sampling of all absentee ballots -- which as we know, went overall to Al Franken by a comfortable margin. On the other hand, as we've reported, both campaigns have demonstrated a skill for figuring out which voters they'd like to get into the count and which voters they'd like to keep out.
So does the Coleman campaign know something about these ballots that the rest of us don't? Or is this some sort of statistical Hail Mary pass -- a blind attempt to try something new, since the alternative is to continue on their present course and still lose?
Late Update: Franken spokesman Andy Barr just sent us a statement ridiculing Coleman for first opposing the counting of rejected ballots, then agreeing, then opposing, then agreeing and so on: "We're not going to respond to any proposal they make until they figure out what, exactly, their proposal is."
Full statement after the jump.
"First the Coleman campaign said there were no wrongly rejected absentee ballots. Then they said there might be a 'handful.' Then they went to court to stop any of them from being reviewed and counted. Then they rejected our proposal to count all the ballots identified by county elections officials as having been wrongly rejected. Then in their election contest, they questioned whether the court should ignore the 950 ballots that had been reviewed and counted by a process they'd agreed to - and substitute 650 ballots they pulled from thin air.
"It seems like the shake-up of the Coleman legal team has resulted in even more confusion on their side. Yesterday, one set of their attorneys proposed to our attorneys that they wanted all 11,000 rejected absentee ballots to be counted, regardless of whether they'd been correctly rejected or not. And today, another set of their attorneys are telling the press that they want all 12,000 rejected absentee ballots to be reviewed by some other process.
"We're not going to respond to any proposal they make until they figure out what, exactly, their proposal is."














I'd guess it was a Hail Mary pass. He has nothing to lose with this gambit, because he knows all his other challenges are without real merit. Now does Franken risk allowing all to be counted, or does he come out against that possibility and then how could he try and frame it as anything other than "Franken does not want all votes counted".
Of course he could just laugh this off as another desperate attempt by Coleman and his people, and that rules were followed and just because you've lost doesn't mean you can try to change the rules is a desperate attempt to change your fate.
January 19, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so. There's undoubtedly a certain amount of desperation behind it, but by now I'm sure both campaigns have done their homework. They know were all the rejected ballots are and if they don't know who the person voted for, at least they have a pretty good idea of the percentages based on where the person lives. If Coleman is offering this now it's because he thinks he's got a good chance of gaining more than 225 votes.
Coleman's credibility is hurt by the fact he's been all over the map in regard to these ballots. First he wanted to accept none of them. Then only 47 of them. Then another 650. Now all 12,000. At least Franken has been consistent in wanting to count all that were incorrectly rejected.
OTOH, it could be a PR ploy, knowing that there's no way the court can rule to count ballots that were rejected in accordance with state law. I'll be interested to see how Franken responds.
January 19, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
All he needs to say is that state law must be followed and that he has confidence that the court will do so.
January 19, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an unreasonable demand!
January 19, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's another attempt to demean the final count and smear the election board. They're looking to future elections and how they can play this for advantage in 2010 and 2014.
January 19, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also simply a new delaying tactic, after they didn't get the court to bite on their ridiculous series of mini-trials. I don't think his string-pullers believe they can win, they just want to keep that 59th Dem vote out of the Senate as long as possible. And we can thank Harry Reid that they're succeeding.
January 19, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Harry Reid's fault, he can't seat any senator until the election is certified and in MN the SoS can't certify an election until all challenges are exhausted.
January 19, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been pointed out over and over again that that statement is utter nonsense. Read the goddamn Constitution, will you? (And then read it to Harry if you get the chance.)
January 19, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's been pointed out over and over again that the assertion that Franken can be seated without a certificate is utter nonsense. Read Senate Rule II. Anyone who expects Reid to ask the Senate to waive the rule that's been in place for 125 years is loony.
January 19, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an excuse, not a reason- as has ALSO been pointed out multiple times. So it's not "can't", it's "won't". Think about that distinction until it starts to sink in.
January 19, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Senate rules are binding. He can ask the Senate to waive the rule, (they almost certainly would refuse, but that's another matter), but if you expect him to do so just to seat Al Franken, then sorry, but you're crazy.
January 19, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senate rules can be, and have been, changed whenever the majority wants to. Just admit it- they don't want to. It is NOT a matter of being unable, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
January 19, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harry Reid does not have the power to change or waive the rule. Only the full Senate can do so. And yes, the don't want to throw away a perfectly reasonable rule that's been observed for 125 years just for Al Franken. How unreasonable.
January 19, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read the rule, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I see nowhere in it anything that would prohibit a provisional seating. And apparently, neither do the Republicans, who haven't mentioned this rule at all in their outraged complaints about Franken's "artificial lead." They have threatened a filibuster if the Dems attempt a provisional seating, but I've not read a single one of them say that such a seating would violate this or any other senate rule. If you have, I'd appreciate you posting a source; I went out just now and searched some for it and came up dry.
My read of rule II has it saying that credential presentation is always in order and that the Secretary is to keep the certificates in a book. Then it proposes a format for certificates. Do you have an authoritative source you can point to that shares your interpretation? I've seen a lot of constitutional scholars going back and forth about whether this would be legal, but never has this rule played in those discussions.
January 19, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The word "shall" is generally interpreted to mean it is not optional. Obviously, such a record cannot be kept if there is no certificate. Moreover, the only interpretation that matters is that of the Senators themselves, and for 125 years it's been interpreted to mean "no certificate - no seat". There has never been a provisional seating of a Senator without a certificate.
They can waive the rule any time they want, but anyone who expects a majority to vote to throw out a perfectly reasonable rule that's been in place for 125 years just to seat Al Franken is smoking something. If I were a Senator, I'd vote Nay. If the person's home state is unwilling to certify the election, why should the Senate, absent some very extraordinary circumstances, vote to seat him? It's not as if the people of Minnesota are going to suffer severe and irreparable harm if it takes another month to work itself out.
January 20, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious Steve what votes do you think we're going to lose in the senate until Franken takes his seat in a few weeks?
January 19, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, we can win while playing by the rules.
Some day the situation may be reversed. And I do not want to open that door. Make them do it, if they choose. And then we will filibuster, and fight, and we will be in the right, and have the proverbial "ethical leg to stand on" because we did, in this instance, play by the rules.
January 19, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter what we do, although I agree we should play by the rules. If the repubs were in the majority and the situation were reversed, Coleman would be seated. We would be outraged and they wouldn't care.
The stuff that Bush did was illegal and was against the Constitution, which holds that all three branches are co-equal. NOTHING was done about it. No challenges that meant anything.
It is like someone running a red light and the policeman scratching his head and saying, "He shouldn't do that," but not doing anything about it, but hoping the next driver will stop for the light. (as if that would change anything in the long run)
It's like that, but far more serious, with far worse consequences, because the next republican driver who gets elected -- perish the thought -- is going to take up where Bush left off. Why shouldn't he/she?
January 21, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legal shake-up? When and details? I missed that one.
January 19, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
His lawyers are getting a little confused because they are simultaneously preparing his defense of the ethics violations which the FBI is investigating. Must be getting close to a Grand Jury and they are getting somewhat flustered. Understandable because Coleman's top guys are criminal lawyers, and election law is not their specialty. True, you can look it up.
January 19, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should it be up to any candidate to decide which votes should be re-evaluated? If the election board has looked at all this mess, and decided that the election is done, why should a sore loser be able to stop it?
Minnesota is an exception, in that it is managed in a way that is non-partisan. Coleman is simply trying to earn his republican money by being a barrier to the winner. That is his cause celebre, and he is only in it for what he can get out of it. He is a loser, and he has lost, and he knows it.
Just like Bush saying that he can't be challenged by congress, coleman wants to get away with not being challenged by reality.
January 19, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think cause celebre means what you think it means CT. Forgive my snark but polls show no one in MN is celebrating Coleman's cause. He's doing it for the party, so they can build resentment among the deceived in hopes the party will help him raise money or at least give him a job so he can pay for his legal defense.
January 19, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
raison d'etre?
January 19, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't "raison d'etre" French for "penis shriveled like a raison"? Cuz if it's not I've misunderstood some things I thought were very funny over the years.
January 20, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vous etes amusant, mon cheri.
January 21, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can I say CVille, I can misinterpret and mistranslate with the best of them. And no I'm not a mutant no matter how many cherries you pile on my head.
January 21, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psst markg8 (off-topic): just thinking that Sen. John Cornyn might have your watch.
January 21, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That rat bastard! If he's holding up Hillary's nomination just to get his paws on that old watch I'm filing a police report. It's not worth all that much but I wanna hear him explain how he came into possession of stolen goods. No judge is gonna believe Hillary gave it to him.
January 21, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark, you really nailed that one.
Coleman needs money, he lost, its over.
January 19, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks DD but at some point he has to look at cost vs. benefit. Is he spending money on this case that would be better put toward his defense on the Ted Stevens like bribery charges? I imagine that job or the fundraising dollars are being held like a carrot over his head and he's being told he won't get it unless he holds out until X date or even uglier for all involved Y bill comes up for a vote in the senate.
To figure out the endgame here let's look at legislation Republicans think Franken could be the deciding vote on over the next month or so. I don't think any of the confirmations are in serious danger.
I don't see any bills they have a realistic hope of filibustering and the way Reid outplayed McConnell on setting up committees I don't see how they'd stymie much before it reaches the floor either. I might be wrong about that, anybody have a better handle on what legislation might be in danger in the senate?
January 20, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to prolong this but finally, I hear from someone who can read and write that Reid can be more than clever at times. I am watching him because he had to play with a 49-49 deck and it will be fun to see what he does 59-41!!!
January 20, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the likelihood is small that Franken's vote would prove decisive in the intervening time before he's eventually seated. The MN courts have shown no inclination to accept dilatory tactics, and I don't see this going more than a month, and probably less. But if you're McConnell, you need every advantage you can get. What have they (and Coleman) got to lose?
January 20, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
with few exceptions the elected are clowns in this country.
this is just another proving example.
January 19, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
test comment. I posted a more complicated comment but it's not showing up...
January 20, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/franken_camp_coleman_is_desper.php#comment-3313433 which touches on what seems to be Coleman's tactic now
January 20, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink