Coleman Attorney Alleges Voter Committed Forgery -- And Wants Ballot Counted
Oh boy, it looks like the Coleman legal team isn't giving up on forgery.
Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg is going over rejected absentee ballot envelopes with Washington County elections official Kevin Corbid, and they came across a pair of ballots that came from a husband and wife, but all appeared to have all been signed by the same individual -- apparently the husband signing his own name, and also forging his wife's signature for her ballot.
"So based on Jake's forging his wife's signature on [exhibit] 210 and then witnessing his own forgery," Friedberg said, "and comparing those signatures to the one on his voter envelope, we know based on your testimony that that's his genuine signature accompanying his own ballot, right?"
The Franken camp objected, saying that Corbid's opinion doesn't matter -- the document speaks for itself.
"I'm going to sustain that," said Judge Denise Reilly, "also on the grounds that it's really confusing."
After a bit more back and forth, Friedberg explained that he is not trying to get the ballot counted for which he believes Jake Thompson forged his wife's signature -- he's just trying to get Jake's separate ballot counted, using the alleged forgery and the witness signature on his wife's ballot for comparison with the handwriting on his own.
Reilly said that based on Friedberg's explanation, she's not as confused. Friedberg chuckled and replied, "I may play a recording back and see if I am, your honor."
Friedberg previously championed the cause of a different individual whose girlfriend forged his signature on his ballot application, while he himself signed the ballot.
Note: It has been established that outside of specific legal exceptions for people who are physically unable to sign their own forms, it is a felony to have someone else forge a signature on a ballot or an application.
Josh
Matt
Eric
...but is it forgery if you have the persons permision to sign their name?
February 4, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
The only exception is if the person is unable to sign a form for themselves.
February 4, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The term "power of Attorney" comes to mind.
February 4, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Power of Attorney requires previous witnessed documentation. And will still probably not work if the law explicitly states when you are allowed to delegate the right to sign the ballot. The MN Gov should pardon these people now or prosecute them.
February 4, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Minnesota law does not recognize such a power of attorney when it comes to absentee ballots, as we are learning in these proceedings.
Only the actual voter is allowed to sign these documents, outside of legal exceptions for people who are unable to physically sign.
February 5, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric: the link you've provided above supports only the proposition that Ramsey County elections director Joe Mansky thinks it's a felony to have someone else "falsely" sign your application.
That raises two obvious questions:
(1) Why should we accept Mr. Mansky's opinion on criminal statutes as authoritative?
(2) What does Mr. Mansky mean by falsely?
Generally, there's nothing wrong with authorizing someone else to sign a document for you. Its certainly possible that Minnesota election law requires absentee voters to personally sign the envelopes. The way to establish that, though, is to cite the relevant statute, not to reference the testimony of an elections official.
I couldn't find anything on point when I glanced quickly at Chapter 203B of the Minnesota Election Laws (http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/2008_chapter_203b_-_6-24-2008_final.pdf).
February 4, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, from the crowd with its knickers in a twist about ACORN...
"It's OK as long as it's the GOP forging signatures."
February 4, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the funny part about all this. The things the Coleman campaign is arguing runs counter to the GOP's voter-fraud-prevention schemes. They're saying that if I go to the polling place around the corner I need to bring a photo ID, but if I mail in my ballot and my signature doesn't match the one they have on file, that's perfectly fine.
February 4, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no. It's ok if they think you voted for Coleman (or the GOP candidate)... get with the program.
February 4, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But why wasn't Jake's ballot counted in the first place?
February 4, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because he's now a felon?
February 4, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was he a convicted felon at the time he voted? No... or at least not for this case. So, the question remains: why wasn't he counted? Maybe this was among the heap of votes that should have been counted, but were rejected by one or both of the campaigns per the MN SC ruling. If true, then his vote probably should be counted. And, he should probably get his comeuppance for the forgery too.
February 4, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like he forged his wife's name as the witness to his ballot.
I'm not sure if that's the reason or, if so, how they determined that, but it sounds like Jake signed 6 or 8 signatures, some his own name, some his wife's.
Makes sense to me they'd throw them all out if they determined somehow he might be forging his wife's name.
Heck, my wife and I have crossed votes more times than we've voted the same. I trust her with my life, but I don't trust her to sign my ballot and visa versa.
February 4, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe his wife forged his signature on the application so it doesn't match his signature on the ballot. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.
There has to be a better way of verifying ballots than comparing signatures. There just has to be.
February 4, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem this case points out is the difference between what works in general and what works under a microscope.
In Oregon, we have mail-in (or drop off) only ballots. Every external envelope has your name, address and signature. The election office workers check to see if the name and address match, then check signatures. If there is no problem, the vote is registered and on the voter register (available to the public and online) it will show that a vote was cast. If a problem is discovered the election officers have until ten days after the election to contact the voter and sort it out.
In general, the system works great, but if you went back and looked at every ballot, you are bound to find problems. The reality is that no system will be perfectly accurate. We can't create perfection in the lab, in business or anywhere else. Errors will always occur. When 100,000,000 million votes are cast, even 99.99% accuracy would still mean 10,000 errors.
Signatures are probably about as unique and protected as anything currently possibly. An objective criteria, such as a voting number, a bar code or anything else could be stolen, hacked or generated without any knowledge of the voter. Even if the ballots required a holographic image of the voter's retinal scan, there are bound to be occasional errors, accidental or intentional, in the processing. The good thing about signatures is that to successfully forge someone else's signature the forger needs to have at least a signature sample.
OTOH actual voter fraud, that is, casting a ballot in someone else's name, with the intent of having it counted is very, very rare. Probably because fictitious names don't receive ballots (some ACORN hires may submit registration cards and get paid by ACORN for registering Mickey Mouse, but that doesn't mean any ballot was issued to Mickey Mouse, or even less likely, a ballot was obtained and then cast in the name of Mickey Mouse - the only fraud there is against ACORN). Electronic tampering and error, however, has been well documented. The lesson is that simple and quantifiable is more reliable than complex and high tech.
February 4, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He signed his wife's name as a witness to his own signature on his ballot, and signed his name as a witness to his wife's signature on his ballot.
February 4, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should be indicted.
As a actual independent, it is funny to see the two sides complain about something the other side does one day and then do it the next. And still have the hutzpah to say it's different. Even comments on blogs are biased. Somebody calling the GOP a political machine even though their beloved Democrats have been doing it since 1840. Now I have call out a GOP flaw or I will be labled a biased Republican by some yellow-dog. What politics needs now is someone who is willing to look at their own party rather than parading the weaknesses of the other guys. I think this President my have that character.
February 4, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
indicted
Felony stupidity, with enhancements
February 4, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible to get an estimate of the daily cost of this fiasco to the taxpayer that these guys so reverently refer to? I will bet that it is not a small amount.
February 4, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plaintiff pays the cost, if he loses.
February 4, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Court costs" is a euphemism includes filing fees, deposition costs, and sometimes attorney's fees, but hardly cover the costs to the government for three judges to sit in trial day after day.
Minnesota taxpayers are getting hosed anyway you look at it.
February 4, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and court costs are taxed to the loser, meaning if Franken wins, Coleman pays Franken's costs, he doesn't reimburse the State of Minnesota.
February 4, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure judges don't work without compensation when they're not in court.
February 4, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have seen a lot of references to the losing party paying "costs." I am not an expert in MN law, but in other jurisdictions in which I have practiced, recoverable costs do not include attorneys' fees. Instead, they are limited to things like court filing costs and certain other listed expenses. There are other statutes in the MN code that specifically reference attorneys' fees, but not the election statute. So, though this case is literally going to cost millions in fees, the recoverable costs may be limited to just a few thousand dollars. I would be interested to see if a MN attorney has the answer to this question.
February 4, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a real misunderstanding about forgery. Normally, if you give a person authority to sign your signature, that is NOT a forgery. For example, you tell your wife to sign your name to a contract to buy a car and she does so. You can't later claim you are not bound by the contract. However, Minnesota law does not allow an absentee voter application to be signed by anyone other than the applicant except in defined circumstances. Therefore the wife signing the app would not seem to allow the absentee ballot under Minnesota law. However calling that a forgery is misleading and inconsistent with our normal use of the term forgery. Rather than calling it a forgery or he or she a forger, it makes more sense, IMHO, to call it an invalid signature
February 4, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That doesn't work when it comes to voter verification for absentee ballots.
Otherwise there is nothing to prevent real voter fraud with absentee balloting if you don't require signature matching.
February 4, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have to say I agree with the Coleman campaign in this one instance. (Ignoring the larger issue of whether they should be allowed to go through and debate each rejected ballot.) I'm not sure why the guy's ballot was rejected. I'd think that as ballots come in they're compared to the signature on file; if they don't match, they're rejected, and if they do, they're accepted. I guess the person recording the ballots noticed several with the same signature and rejected them all. Must be a pretty small county.
February 4, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
He voted twice. That's what his signature says.
If he signed his wife's ballot, why should we believe he didn't also vote it?
Toss out both. And give him a day in jail and a fine.
February 4, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I'm understanding this situation correctly, the husband signed his own, valid signature to his own ballot, then signed (forged?) his wife's name as his witness. He then signed (forged?) his wife's name to her ballot and signed his own, valid signature as her witness. Which means he committed forgery on both ballots, and both should be tossed.
If MN law requires a valid signature for a "witness" then he voided his own ballot. Should have asked his mailman to act as his witness instead of forging his wife's signature.
Whether he had her permission or not, he cannot witness his own ballot.
Now I'll go unscramble my own brain...
PEACE
February 4, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's probably true but doesn't say that explicitly above.. just that he signed his wife's signature on her ballot and "witnessed his forgery" with his own name. doesn't say who witnessed his own ballot.
if he forged her signature as witness on his own ballot, it would probably be rejected. as the court said, it's fair to establish a couple of requirements people need to meet in order to vote absentee. I think it's a bit silly to require a witness but if they do, you've got to get one. it's not that tough. (although I can see me forging my wife's signature too.)
February 4, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't the Reich Wing Media not banging the drums of voter fraud with examples of ACTUAL VOTER FRAUD!
February 4, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loved that!
I think it's reasonable to count the guy's own ballot. The problem is, that it's out of order here. This trial is not about voter self-disenfranchisement, it's about due process for Coleman (and Franken).
The guy self-disenfranchised the moment he submitted two ballots he had signed.
It's interesting that this was noticed. Probably that happened through due diligence by election officials. They checked the wife's signature, it didn't match, so they looked up his ballot.
It's a stupid technicality, but it is the law for now.
I say, throw out both votes for the purpose of this contest. How do we know that the wife even voted at all?? Maybe he filled out her ballot for her, in which case I say a day in jail and a fine is not too harsh.
February 4, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds to me like this man voted twice (once for himself and once for his wife), and neither of his ballots should be counted. It is interesting that this is perhaps the first verifiable incidence of voter fraud I've ever seen and it comes not from ACORN, but from a Republican.
February 4, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another documented voter fraud and it was a college-age campaign staffer living with a Republican candidate, Patrick McHenry, now three-term incumbent (NC-10).
February 4, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You commenters are forgetting that the people checkeing the absentee submissions for one of the 4 show stoppers were looking at the same signature for two voters. Once they conclude that one person has signed both ballots, they know a forgery has taken place but they have know idea who the forger is.
By law they must reject both ballots on the grounds that they cannot know which one "may" be valid. If the wife did the forging, it would invalidate her husbands ballot and vice versa, but neither can be counted
February 4, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what Coleman's lawyer is trying to argue -- that the forgery on his wife's ballot should provide proof that the man's signature on his own ballot is his own. But like you say, it's likely that all four signatures look like they're signed by the same person, so how would someone know which was forged?
And are you sure that's one of the "showstoppers"? It's easy to see that one person's name was signed by two different people, but much more difficult to tell that one person signed two different people's names on two different ballots. My guess is that they only check when looking at ballots from the same address, and even then probably don't invalidate many ballots for that reason.
February 4, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Following that up: Ballots can only be rejected if a person fails to meet one of these four criteria:
(1) name and address on return envelope same as on absentee ballot application
(2) voter's signature on the return envelope is the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for ballots and certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions (except if voter is allowed to have someone else sign because of disability)
(3) voter is registered and eligible or has enclosed registration
(4) voter has not already voted at that election
I don't think they were looking for two signatures by one person, I think they were checking to make sure a signature on the ballot matched the signature on the application or perhaps on the original registration. how else could they determine if it was the "genuine signature"? if either his or his wife's signature matched the one on the application and/or registration, I think they'd have to accept it.
February 4, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is why it was rejected.
To receive an Absentee Ballot (AB), you must request one by signing a form. That signature is what is checked against the AB that you mail in.
The AB that you mail in has to have a witness signature on it. The forger signed his name as the voter on his AB vote, and his wife's name as the witness for his AB vote. Then, he reversed the two signatures on his "wife's" forged vote.
Since the voter's sig and the witness' sig matched, they were obviously invalid and were rejected for one of the four reasons to reject an AB.
The rejection of his "wife's" AB is obvious.
February 4, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
All they have to work with is the signatures. They still didn't know who the forger was. I guess after the fact one could show that the guy was doing all the signing and therefore maybe his is a real ballot, but that's only after you verify who did ALL the signing. If his
wife signed both applications and both ballots, how would they know that on election night? Then hers would have been the valid ballot. Neither can be counted.
February 4, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't need to know for sure that the husband forged his wife's signature to throw out his ballot. All they need to know is that the witness signature on his ballot isn't valid. They have the wife's signature on file, so they can prove it isn't hers. I suppose one could argue that the witness signature on the husband's ballot is valid because it's possible that a person with the same name as his wife (who had coincidentally just committed voter fraud using his wife's ballot) was the witness, but that's unlikely in the extreme.
February 4, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't seem like the court's time should be burdened by these trivialities. The election officials' judgement should be granted some deference, in the absence of a showing of fraud or gross incompetence, and Coleman's ballot-by-ballot suit should be dismissed.
The problem, of course, is the proclivity of 4 or 5 of our highest jurists to reach way down into state judicial systems and play kangaroo court if their favorite candidate doesn't win. The Minnesota court recognizes that it must now always look over its shoulder for the hungered eyes of a Justice Scalia, yearning to meddle with politically inexpedient results even though state court decisions were long respected in elections. Or as Justice Stevens thundered in his in Bush v. Gore dissent,
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
February 5, 2009 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Overreach as touched on the fundamental problem. That would be the problem of the judicial being involved , in any way , with the peoples election. The judicial , in my opinion , should not ever be involved with the business of our elections. Their should be a way to make the American people , and only the American , people the exclusive electors of our governmental representatives. And their should be no way possible for any other part of our government to be involved. I would like to have a constitutional amendment disallowing the judicial and the executive from being involved in our elections in any way.
February 5, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Registration fraud is only a felony if you're associated with ACORN. These people, on the other hand, are good Republicans.
February 5, 2009 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink