Coleman: I'm Proud Of My Witnesses
At a brief press conference with reporters just now, held after the Minnesota election court proceedings ended for the day, Norm Coleman expressed his pride in the witnesses his legal team had called, regular voters whose absentee ballots haven't been counted yet.
Now remember, their witness roster included a guy who admitted to obtaining his absentee ballot through forgery by his girlfriend, and is demanding that his vote be counted.
"You know there's been so much discussion about process, but today we saw the human side of this, and that's what this is really about," said Coleman. He added a bit later: "For me it was heartwarming to be here to see Minnesotans come forward and be so passionate, so passionate, about the right to vote and be counted."
To be sure, some of the witnesses were sympathetic -- such as Gerald Anderson, a 75-year old who has gone legally blind and who believes his signature on his ballot envelope didn't match the one on his ballot application because of his lost vision. But come on, they really called the forgery guy?
(Special thanks to The Uptake for carrying the presser.)
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
The answer is a procedure for rejected absentee voters to be notified and allowed to appeal. Normally no races are close enough for rejected ballots to make a difference, but in this case, there's been time, if the law allowed it.
There was a an attempt to start early voting in Minnesota, but it was attached to a bill Governor Pawlenty vetoed. At least the state Democrats tried.
January 27, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think everyone should get one chance to vote correctly. Make it easy for everyone to do so, aid those with visual or other handicaps, let folks mark an X for their name if they can't write, have the polls open for weeks ahead of time.
But why should absentees get a second chance just because their ballot can be identified? There were thousands of votes at the polling places that didn't count either due to voter error or malice (lizard people).
One person, one vote, one try to make your intent known.
January 27, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be assuming that absentee votes only get rejected due to error on the part of the voter and not due to error on the part of those doing the rejection. The Minnesota Senate race invalidates your assumption. Come up with a new one. If you can't, you can borrow this one: sometimes the error resides on the part of the voter, and sometimes the error resides on the part of the one rejecting the vote. Now, what should we do for those cases that the one doing the rejecting has made the mistake? Blame it on the voter anyway?
January 28, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet that veto won't be lost on voters if Pawlenty runs for anything in the future.
January 27, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, you've alluded to three of the cases Coleman presented today, and none of them seems to be a clear case, or any case at all really, that the canvassing board or elections officals made any errors in rejecting the ballots in question. Any details on the other 3?
The election official cannot devine all of these subplots when the signatures don't match, or when the ballot doens't have the proper witness certification. If those are part of the criteria for accepting or rejecting a ballot according to Minnesota law, what the hell is Coleman trying to even attempt to make a case on. That these hand picked people should get a second chance.
Maybe they will imporve the procesdure or change the law next time, but here's nothing here that shows any problem with the vote counting or the procedure for rejecting absentee ballots.
When is this thing scheduled to end?
January 27, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can hear the pain in that question. . .
January 27, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So all were rightly rejected then? I don't get what the Coleman camp is arguing here. The rule seems to have been if the two signatures don't match, the vote isn't counted. This might be a bad rule, but it was a rule at the time of the election.
January 27, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears to me that Coleman, through his lawyers, is arguing that the rules don't apply to him if those rules keep him from going back to the Senate. They are just petty technicalities that keep the "proper" people out of government. Sort of like the "technicality" that "due process," "rights" and the pesky courts keep the "proper" people out of prison.
If some of the "right people" are judges on the trial, the Coleman people might expect to get a favorable hearing, no matter how illogical it is to the rest of us. It's very class-oriented.
I'd bet he is mainly setting the stage for a continued argument in the future that Franken is not a "legitimate" Senator. He is trying to put a cloud over the election. The assumption is going to be that the questions into the election will remain long after the lack of legitimacy of the questions are forgotten.
Of course, it is clear that Coleman is broke. He's not paying bills, and is being funded by donors. Those are right-wingers who are out to attack Franken in any way possible, and going after his legitimacy as a Senator is one of them. If you really want to know what this is all about, look at the figures who are financing it. They own Coleman.
January 28, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Heartwarming." Yeah.
Because whenever I've seen someone's witnesses meltdown worse than that guy at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, I ask opposing counsel, "Hey, how did your client feel about that?" And then opposing counsel chuckles and pats me on the shoulder and says, "You know, it's heartwarming to him. He's here to see the human side of this, which is what it's all about." And then I say, "Really? Because I thought this was all about a huge dispute between your guy and my guy that could cost him his entire livelihood." And then opposing counsel suppresses a tear and says, "Oh no, no no no. It's about the people who--I'm sorry. Will you, um, excuse me for a moment?" And then opposing counsel runs into the hall and cries like a baby. Because the last thing any of this was was heartwarming.
January 27, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah what do you know? You chopped your wife up and tried to carry her body parts out of your apartment in a suitcase. And you killed that little dog too. The cockles of my heart are cooking like summer bratwurst on the grill at the sight of Normy having only legitimately excluded absentee voters to drag into to court to make his case. Pass the mustard.
January 27, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No plan on how to authenticate their exhibits. Had they tried to formulate a plan on how to authenticate them, they would have discovered that their exhibits were unauthenticatable because they were photocopies that were not true and accurate copies of the originals. Failure to subpoena the originals for use at trial before the fact, despite having the burden of proof. Not one witness who was properly prepped and most apparently not even thorougly interviewed.
Ten to one, when they finally get the original ballots, they won't be able to lay the proper foundation to get them admitted. It's more painful than watching a pro se crank argue some incoherent psuedo-pleadings he downloaded off the Internet.
Have any of these high powered lawyers ever tried a case before? Did anyone take evidence or trial advocacy in law school? Have any of them at least seen "My Cousin Vinny?"
January 27, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, they've shown up in their ringmaster tuxedos and cowboy boots, so I'd say they've at least got Vincent Gambini's sartorial splendor down.
January 28, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Heartwarming." Yeah.
Because whenever I've seen someone's witnesses meltdown worse than that guy at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, I ask opposing counsel, "Hey, how did your client feel about that?" And then opposing counsel chuckles and pats me on the shoulder and says, "You know, it's heartwarming to him. He's here to see the human side of this, which is what it's all about." And then I say, "Really? Because I thought this was all about a huge dispute between your guy and my guy that could cost him his entire livelihood." And then opposing counsel suppresses a tear and says, "Oh no, no no no. It's about the people who--I'm sorry. Will you, um, excuse me for a moment?" And then opposing counsel runs into the hall and cries like a baby. Because the last thing any of this was was heartwarming.
January 27, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I take it it's safe to say he thinks they did a heckuva job.
January 27, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be sure, some of the witnesses were sympathetic -- such as Gerald Anderson, a 75-year old who has gone legally blind and who believes his signature on his ballot envelope didn't match the one on his ballot application because of his lost vision. But come on, they really called the forgery guy?
As Arlo Guthrie put it: Is this a case of Blind Justice?
January 27, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reference to Alice's Restaurant.
I doubt that most readers will appreciate the humor of your pen name, Dick Day. Dick Day is the Republican state representative who recently argued that we should not be concerned with voters who are too "stupid" to fill in the ovals on their ballots correctly. Now, of course, the Coleman team has argued that absentee ballots should be counted even if they do not meet the four clear criteria specified in state statutes.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson (and, implicitly, Norm Coleman.... Wow, Norm, you do keep erudite company!)
January 27, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ted, I used to get calls to my office back when I was a productive member of society for him. He was minority leader at the time. And my response was that I am not now, nor have I ever been a Republican.
January 27, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? You were expecting candor? It's Norm Coleman.
January 27, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Coleman position on improperly rejected absentee ballots is very clear. It goes as follows:
A. No rejected ballots should be counted. It doesn't matter why they were rejected, for good reason or not. Life's not fair. If those voters don't like it, screw 'em.
OR
B. All rejected ballots should be counted, regardless of the reason. It's not fair that someone's vote isn't counted, even if it clearly fails to meet the four requirements stipulated by Minnesota statute. Especially if it's an old person. And he complains angrily about his vote being rejected. Then it's really unfair.
OR
C. Okay, then don't count the properly rejected ballots, but do count the improperly rejected ballots, but only if they're votes for Coleman. Otherwise, it's not fair to count them. And if the Franken voters don't like it, screw 'em.
January 27, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Help me here. The Coleman team is now requesting that thousands of absentee ballot envelopes be sent to St. Paul so the justices can determine whether the ballots within should be counted. One of the reasons a ballot can be legally rejected is if the signature does not match. What does the signature have to match? Is it the signature on the registration on file or included with the absentee ballot or the absentee ballot request form or what? In any case, is the requisite supplemental documentation also being sent in for the justice's review? If not, how will the justices be able to make any determination about the validity of any absentee ballot that was rejected on the basis of an unmatched signature?
Also, does anyone know if any of the ballots that Coleman is now asking to be included are among those his team explicitly rejected during the recount?
January 27, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter tedb:
"Aaaaargh! Teh Coleman STOOPID! It BURNZZZZ!"
I agree with both analyses, BTW. :)
January 28, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
2 signatures:
one on the ballot and one on sealed envelope that the absentee ballot was sent in
January 28, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, the signature has to match the signature on the absentee ballot application. The idea is to ensure the person requesting the ballot is the same person that filled it out.
January 28, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman missed a bet not dragging a few corpses into court, pointing out that someone might have innocently forged their signatures too. He could have pointed out their votes would have counted in Chicago, Texas, or Florida. So what's this peculiar hangup in Minnesota about forged signatures?
January 28, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vote counting is a lot like editing a book or a magazine. The first round catches 90% of errors and any major structural problems. The next round clears out 90% of the remaining errors. And so on... Eventually, you've been through enough iterations to be sure that most of the errors have been caught (there is a tension to publish the damn magazine or book already). If 30,000 votes out of 3 million were problematic to start with, the first round of checking should have cleared up 27,000, leaving 3,000. A second round, say, where the cavassing board reviewed the problems would have lowered the amount to 300. Now in the contest, we may find 30 votes or so that are still worth disputing. This is well below an amount needed to change the outcome. In fact a 1% error rate is huge in a well run election.
January 28, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink