Friendly Coleman Witness: They Cherry-Picked Me
Here's another funny moment earlier today from the slow-motion comedy show that is the Minnesota Senate trial.
The Coleman team is continuing to call as witnesses some aggrieved voters to complain that their ballots were wrongly rejected. This didn't go too well last time, and the newest pair had their fun moments. One of them was college student Peter DeMuth, who sent away for an absentee ballot because he goes to school in Fargo, North Dakota -- he even drove several hours to St. Paul this morning, just so he could get his vote counted.
Upon cross-examination by Franken attorney Kevin Hamilton, DeMuth said he was contacted by the Republican Party and told about the problem. "They asked me if I knew my absentee ballot had been rejected. I said no," said DeMuth. "They asked me if I was a supporter of Norm Coleman, and I said yes, and they proceeded to ask me if I would like to go further."
Let's think about this for a moment: Over the last several days, the Coleman camp has said repeatedly that they are not cherry-picking who they're helping out, that they don't know who the people they're advocating for actually supported, and for all they know they're helping out Franken-voters.
So much for that argument. On top of that, DeMuth's story is by itself fascinating.
DeMuth's ballot was rejected because the signature on his application didn't match the one on his ballot, and he said nobody ever called him to inform him of the problem. Upon his initial direct examination by Coleman lawyer James Langdon, DeMuth explained how it happened: Instead of signing the application with a pen, he downloaded a PDF copy and converted it into a JPG, then typed in the relevant text and "signed" his initials by using the mouse.
"It's hard to get the signature I normally use, so I just used my initials," DeMuth explained.
He then e-mailed the application in and got a ballot days later, which he filled in and signed his full name to in the old-fashioned way. Upon cross-examination, Franken lawyer Kevin Hamilton asked: "Do you have a pen in your dorm-room at Fargo?"
Apparently DeMuth didn't want to pay to print out a copy of the application on campus, and he thought this would be easier.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
This guy (DeMuth) got into college? Even with my gray hair, I know how to sign something electronically.
January 29, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeebus. There's only one college in Fargo, ND, so it sounds like this moron is enrolled at my alma mater. I feel so ashamed.
January 29, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's always Rasmussen....
January 29, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't tell if he was legally a resident of MN from his testimony either.
January 29, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So from the voters Norm is calling I guess we can conclude that morons overwhelmingly favor Norm Coleman.
January 29, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ding ding ding....winning line of the day!
January 29, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to agree with anything the Coleman team does, but this kids ballot was probably actually rejected improperly. Insofar as I understand the law on this, making your mark on an application or ballot is considered the same as a signature, it just made it very hard to verify that it was in fact a legitimate signature and is probably not a good idea in terms of making them easily verifiable. The cherry picking, ect, is reprehensible on the part of the Coleman people, but this kid's vote should probably count, as long as there was no other part to his vote that was objectionable. Frankly, I find 99.999% of what the Coleman people are doing completely redicilious, but I really don't think this kid should legally lose his right to vote because of the method he decided to sign the application and ballot, if it was in fact his signature.
January 29, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you go in to vote in person you have to sign the application and they compare your signature to the signature on the voter registration. Comparing signatures is one of the primary means they have of identifying voters. With absentee ballots it's really the only means they have of ensuring that the person who filled out the ballot is the same person who requested it.
And it's pretty ironic that the party that advocates photo ID's, fingerprints and retinal scans for people to vote now want to accept any old absentee ballot that comes in with no verification at all.
January 29, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, when registered voters sign in on the election roster, there is no signature with which to compare. I would guess that there would be a signature on file to compare with if there was an after-the-election fraud investigation.
January 29, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Ohio, a voter signs the roster book, in a box right next to a copy of their signature scanned from some previous document (registration card, probably). This occurs as part of the process of signing in to vote, and we are expected to compare the two signatures.
Recent legislation requires voters to provide identification documents to avoid voting on a provisional ballot. So we still look at the signatures (at least *I* did), but the identification requirements take precedence.
January 29, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In PA, you sign in a box next to a scanned copy of your voter registration signature, so they can verify that the signatures match.
January 30, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not in California, at least not in Los Angeles County where I have been a poll worker for several elections. The voter signs the book, but there is no copy of his/her signature already there. We do not require ID either. The presumption is that the voter is acting in good faith.
It is possible that those signatures are checked against the voter registration records later.
January 30, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
He won't lose his Right to vote. What he has lost is this vote. He clearly failed to follow accepted procedure for verifying identity of the voter to the election officials.
Anywhere I have ever been, someone who signs a legal document by mark has to have it witnessed, either in the direct presence of an official, by a Notary, or by someone who then signs his signature as the witness.
January 29, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there some follow up process back to the voter with rejected ballots? I mean, if the law says the signatures have to match, then they have to match. The state employees would have no way to second guess all the discrepancies. Did the dude with the stroke whose ballot was rejected get his vote? It would be the same thing. It would be ideal to have follow up where they voter could confirm/deny...just not sure how practical it is. I'm curious how vote by mail areas like Oregon deal with this.
January 29, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't seem to get "reply" to work. WRT the question about what Oregon does? If my signature on the ballot doesn't match the one on file with the county election people, they are supposed to call me at the number in the file. Since this has never happened to me, either my signature always has matched, or they don't follow the rule.
--Dennis
January 29, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in Oregon your signature has to match. If you have a stroke, lose an arm, etc. and your signature changes, all you have to do is re-register with a new signature card so your signature will now match. You can also always vote in person at any election office and deal with any signature mitigation issues then and there.
January 29, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, what I am referring to is correcting what would be a long-term issue for someone. As others have pointed out, there are contact of voters whose ballots do not match the registered signatures in a current or just held election.
January 29, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insofar as I understand the law on this, making your mark on an application or ballot is considered the same as a signature
I suspect it all depends if the state election department considers electronic forms to be acceptable. Since electronic forms can be manipulated, I suspect electronic copies of hard-copy forms are the only exception allowed.
My state allowed me to fax them a copy of the original absentee ballot request I received in the mail. They were quite specific that I fill out all the necessary information on the form by hand.
January 29, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. It was rejected properly, but the proper procedures caused the voter to self-disenfranchise. That could be improved in the future, but I would argue it's not the purview of the Court in this matter.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eds/2009/01/thoughts-on-the-minnesota-elec.php
January 29, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If what you suggest is correct, there is no point in the requirement that the application ever be signed.
What worries me most is that Norm will win this thing. If he wins in federal court, there can never be a recount again anywhere. If the heroic efforts to achieve equal protection in this recount were insufficient, it can't be proved.
Norm hopes to have the entire recount thrown out so that he can be seated based on Election Day results. If you think that is impossible, reread Bush v. Gore.
January 30, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The cherry picking, ect, is reprehensible on the part of the Coleman people, but this kid's vote should probably count, as long as there was no other part to his vote that was objectionable."
I don't agree. You can't go around asking voters if that was their signature, that's why the signatures have to MATCH.
Having signed his initials on the application, he should have signed his initials on the ballot.
January 29, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you allowed Party's to go around asking voters to verify their signatures, the next thing to happen will be voters getting cold calls asking them to verify whom they voted for to validate their ballot.
January 29, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cherry picking is irrelevant. Coleman is not trying to have the Court validate each and every ballot, he's trying to make the case that the election was a failure. As long as the testimony is truthful, he's building a case.
Cherry picking helps the sideshow. If the Court takes its collective eye off the ball, then the sideshow might be relevant. So far the Court seems pretty seriously minded if sometimes a bit opaque to me.
January 29, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As long as the testimony is truthful, he's building a case."
That's just it though, as it turns out Norm's argument is not based on truth, as has been woefully exposed in these first couple days. They claimed they were not cherry picking Coleman supporters when in fact one of their star witnesses confirmed that whether he supported Norm was one of the first questions asked.
They attempt to argue by slight of hand, bringing in ballots that were PHOTO COPIED and in a number of cases missing the explanatory written in the margins or a post-it as to why the ballot was rejected.
I'm really shocked that these justices are allowing this whole charade to go on. All partisanship aside, if I were a judge and the roles were reversed and Franken brought Coleman to court submitting into evidence intentionally doctored evidence and told such a bold faced lie that the witnesses called forth were selected at random with no knowledge of who the witnesses had voted for only to have that witness tell the court, Minnesotans, and the rest of the bleary eyed American spectators that he was absolutely asked whether he supported Coleman ... it's like damn ... do these judges have no shame? Do they not carry a modicum of respect for the office that they hold to not allow themselves to be made a mockery of?
Maybe they will end this circus prematurely, perhaps waiting for Norm's words to belie his actions even more egregiously before they tell him how he is a disgrace to his office and should be ashamed to bring a case not based on merit but on fabrications and doctored evidence. That would be excellent if they could nail him on perjury, but unfortunately I don't think he'll take the stand.
January 30, 2009 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman is throwing in a lot of chaff, but the job of the court is to look past the chaff to see if any kernel to just cause remains. And part of what Franken's lawyers get paid for is to make it clear to the court that a given piece of evidence or given move is chaff.
The court could sanction his attorneys if the "chaff abuse" is too much. If it could be shown that the clipped photocopies were deliberately distorted, that would be sanctionable. The defense is that it was clerical error, similar to the clerical errors in the election which rejected at least 1300 ballots wrongly. So some "do overs" are reasonable.
January 30, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how many folks who were cherry-picked said they voted for Franken and the concern from the Coleman camp for their vote getting counted ended there.
January 29, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted absentee too since I am going to school in Iowa. So when this whole thing started I called up my county auditor and you know, asked if it was rejected and they told me no.
January 29, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Team Norm is freaking great. This is "so bad it's good" legal work, at least from an entertainment standpoint.
I agree with Jonze: given the level of work we're seeing done by the Team Norm, it's likely that Franken voters were tossed overboard.
John
January 29, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly, unless the court ruling doesn't go his way. Then, I suspect those Franklin ballots will magically appear and a whole new round of litigation will start to toss out the results and reschedule the election.
January 29, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm curious how vote by mail areas like Oregon deal with this." - TaraV
Oregon voter here. Just talked to a county election official:
In Oregon, ballots are mailed out in advance with two envelopes, a secrecy envelope and an outer, mailing envelope that requires a signature. Ballots can be mailed or dropped off. As they are received the outer envelope is checked for consistency and the signature compared to the one on record. As soon as it is confirmed, the vote is registered, and the fact that a voter has voted is public record so it can be checked by the voter and get out the vote people who will then, hopefully, stop calling to remind you to vote. In my county, votes are usually registered within a day.
If the signature doesn't match, or there is some other problem, the vote isn't registered, and the county mails out notices and (at least in my small county) will try to call the voter to sort out the problem. A voter has us to 10 days after the election to correct any problem.
The system works great! No lines, no hassles, no disenfranchisement, no fraud. You can fill out your ballot in private, take as much time as you want, and disregard all the last minute ads, knowing your vote is already processed. Ballots are optically scanned and every ballot is retained and can be verified. Democracy in action (quietly)!
January 29, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precious. But they are trying to make a case that the entire absentee process can be overturned. It won't work
January 29, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we can only suffer while wondering whether when Norm attempts to take it to the Supreme court, whether this court has even a modicum of principle more than the one the ruled on Bush v Gore and refuse to hear the case while lambasting him as a sore loser for the ages.
January 30, 2009 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am confused. When I go to vote in Tennessee the first step is signing the application, which is then compared to my signature. Since the whole point is to show the person voting is the person who registered and the time honored way is to compare signatures.
If this is the best the Coleman people can do to find incorrectly rejected absentee ballots, hats off to the election workers in MN.
January 29, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's weird, when I look at Norm's photo and squint my eyes I see Blagojevich... weired.
January 30, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if this ballot or any other ballot was rejected for what we feel are dubious reasons, if the same criteria were used for both coleman and Franken, then it was fairly applied.
If you don't like the law, work to change i.
January 30, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should rejected ballots be counted for both parties, if the rejection was technically justified even if the voter was legit?
In principle, I think yes. But in this case, I think that Coleman's prior acts combined with the kind of case and remedies available, say No.
January 30, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink