Yet More Ballot High-Jinks In Minnesota
One of the intriguing elements of the Minnesota election contest that we've been keeping track of is how the campaigns have a knack for taking legal action to help their own voters, and only their own voters. This might just be another example.
A group of seven voters from around Minnesota have now filed a new class action lawsuit to have their votes counted. Their absentee ballots were deemed to have been improperly rejected by the local election officials involved, but were individually vetoed by the two campaigns during that review process, under the terms of the state Supreme Court's controversial opinion that gave them this power.
Attorney Bruce Kennedy, who is representing the seven voters, told TPMDC that one of the ballots was vetoed by the Coleman campaign, two by the Franken team, and he's not aware at this time of the conditions affecting the other four. Kennedy is himself a political hand, having run for Secretary of State with the Independence Party in 2006, but said he is not undertaking this in association with any campaign.
The Franken campaign is now opposing the lawsuit, on the grounds that it has been filed too late in the process, while Coleman is supporting it.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Was there a deadline that was missed? Didn't the Franken Campaign have 63 folks who filed suit to have their rejected ballots counted or something to that effect? Why did these folks wait so late? Why isn't the campaigns each finding more folks who voted for their side to sue to get their votes counted?
January 23, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric - there are two important mistakes in your post. This is not a lawsuit, but a motion to intervene in the election contest. And even more importantly, this is not a class action (which would include all voters whose absentee ballots were wrongly rejected), but simply an action to ensure that the votes for THESE seven people are counted.
January 23, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang Eric. Schooled by an adorable baby. That's gotta burn.
January 23, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This intervention is a direct attack on the MNSC's oddball ruling allowing the two campaigns to come up with a way to decide which erroneously rejected absentee ballots to count. Since I did not think the MNSC's ruling made sense at the time, I'm inclined to think this intervention requires the Court to backtrack, or to do-over the "consensus" count, or to explain and justify its apparently illegal scheme in more detail.
January 24, 2009 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right. I personally thought that ruling stank. I agree with the objections these voters raise, but disagree that they only want their own votes counted. They should be petitioning on behalf of others who's ballots were also wrongly rejected.
January 24, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they cannot "petition" for others, and their intervention should, as I understand the law there, be sufficient to the end your post points at. The Court cannot remedy their complaints alone without manifestly violating due process for the others.
It takes only one test case to break the "rule" for all (Rosa Parks, Roe v. Wade, ...).
I think one question before the Court could be how far to look into details at this point, given that neither side in the election opposed the Court's oddball ruling at the time. It could be that while these voters may have a legit (if moot) beef about their votes, the election contest might be out of order on this point.
I await the curtain on the next Act!
January 24, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
test
January 24, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
test
January 24, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink