Coleman Lawyer: Count The Prisoner's Vote
The Coleman legal team is continuing to review the rejected absentee ballots one by one, spending this afternoon questioning Pine County Auditor Cathy Clemmer. One particular ballot came from a man whose ballot was tossed because he was not a resident of the county.
Well, he was a resident of the county -- in the county jail, awaiting trial for an unspecified charge. He requested a ballot from jail, and Clemmer admitted that the application should have been forwarded to his adjacent home county. Instead, the bailiff delivered him a ballot for Pine, which was later rejected because of his home address.
"By the time it was returned, was Mr. Grewe still in--" said Coleman lawyer Joe Friedberg, "still in custodia legis?"
The answer: Yes, the voter was still in the joint.
Now it may well be that this individual was legally allowed to vote, if he wasn't a convicted felon at that time. But just imagine the media outcry that would have occurred if a Democrat were waging an election lawsuit and tried to get this one counted.
Another interesting example: The Coleman campaign was pleading for a separate ballot that was originally rejected for a mismatched signature, as compared to the absentee ballot application.
During cross-examination, Franken lawyer Kevin Hamilton figured this out: The local officials changed their minds about the signatures back in December, and felt it should be counted. But it was re-rejected by the Coleman campaign, under the controversial decision by the state Supreme Court that gave the campaigns a veto over improperly-rejected absentees.
"They [the Coleman campaign] rejected it because they felt the judges were properly rejecting it for signature purposes," said Clemmer.
"Well, I guess they're changing their minds now," Hamilton replied.
One thing that should be noted: The aggrieved voters that Coleman has been calling as witnesses, when pressed on the fact that they were contacted and screened by the Republican Party, said they first received the phone calls about three weeks ago -- after those ballots were sorted and vetoed.
This particular individual was not actually in court today. But it's worth thinking about the fact that the Coleman camp didn't want to count this ballot, then changed their minds, and seemed to have forgotten their prior actions.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Coleman is just a monkey flinging shit at this point.
February 5, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
When that's all you've got, that's all you can do. The question becomes how long the court lets this go on. Coleman appears to have an unlimited supply of shit, so the only way this ever comes to an end is if either this court or the MN-SC decides enough is enough.
February 5, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Words escape me.
February 5, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he's trying to preserve his franchise once he ends up behind bars.
Quimby in an orange jumpsuit - that's a dream we can live with.
February 5, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this episode, fighting to count a vote that they themselves recently rejected, does not scream "we are here to just to prevent Franken from being seated", then I don't know what does. The Supreme Court can and should use this to provisionally seat Franken to call Coleman's bluff and see if he's really serious about litigating for the seat or if he's just acting as RNC proxy to prevent Franken from going to DC.
Or just as well, let the legislature jam through a new law requring that the winner from the recount be seated provisionally pending the election contest.
February 5, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think pretty much everyone understands what's going on here, including the MN-SC. Their problem is that being Supreme Court justices and all, they're kind of expected to do this legally. (Although that didn't stop the SCOTUS from installing GWB in the White House.)
I think their best legal grounds is to dismiss the case on the grounds that Coleman has had ample opportunity and has not demonstrated that his case has any merit whatsoever, and that continuing this suit would do irreparable harm to the people of Minnesota. Coleman's legal right to his day in court has been satisfied, but they're under no obligation to allow this to be dragged on in finitum.
February 5, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, are there any ballots from dead people that he can try to get counted as well? May as well go whole hog.
February 5, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to Josh Marshall:
Minnesota restores the vote to felons once they have completed their sentence and been discharged.
February 5, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like the question in this case was whether the prisoner was convicted or held pending trial. You're right that Minnesota allows felons to vote once they're released and complete parole and probation.
Though I'd be willing to just let them vote, like we expect responsible citizens to do.
February 5, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds absurd, but I would count the jailbird's vote. As far as I know, there is no state that prevents people in jail from voting. In fact, under the identified facts, it would probably be unconstitutional to deny this guy the right to vote since his case has not been adjudicated in any way.
My quick glance at Minnesota's statutes gives me the impression that felons are automatically re-enfranchised after being discharged from their sentence, including any probation. (See Minn. Stat. Sec. 242.31 https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=242.31&year=2008 )
So, even if the dude were an ex-felon, if he was out and about and not on probation, he should have the right to vote. That right could only be denied to him if he were convicted of a felony. As long as he is just waiting trial or if he is convicted of a misdemeanor, he still gets to vote, no matter where he is.
Yes, Democrats would take a beating if they were arguing for this guy's vote to count, but I will take solace in the fact that Norm Coleman doesn't have much of a chance of changing the outcome of the election.
February 5, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meant to add that his vote should be counted since he was delivered the wrong ballot through no fault of his own. It was their mistake, not his.
February 5, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's currently a point of contention whether the voter is excused from a requirement because of relevant errors by the election officials.
A big question if you go down this road is where you draw the line. For example, if the full instructions to sign something are covered up, but the signature line is right there and says "Voter's Signature," it should be pretty obvious that you're supposed to sign it.
The court is entertaining arguments and evidence on this, but has not definitively ruled one way or the other.
February 5, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless I've got my facts wrong, he did make the mistake. He requested a ballot from the wrong county. Normally they forward the request to the right county and for some reason they didn't, but the mistake was his.
February 5, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should have checked the ballot. It is the responsibility of the VOTER to vote correctly.
February 5, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You point is slightly twisted by the controlling facts.
You are correct in assuming that it would be unconstitutional to deny the confined individual the right to vote, but that vote must be cast in accordance with the law.
Voting in a county in which you are not a resident, and not registered to to do, would not be conduct in accordance with the law.
It's fair to say that he was wronged by the confining authorities who, apparently in good faith, delivered a ballot that could not be counted once cast. But, any redress under law does not recognize that a special exception should be made to the law to count his vote, even though it was cast and submitted in error.
He can sue the county if he wishes for his disenfranchisement, but he cannot demand that his vote be counted if it was not lawfully cast. And, all indications are—despite the good faith efforts of all parties—that it was not.
February 5, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound like Hans von Spakovsky. What difference does it make what county the guy voted in? If he'd showed up at a polling place in the wrong county, he could have gotten a provisional ballot or re-registered since MN has same day registration.
Legal Mumbo jumbo to disenfranchise voters is best left to the republicans.
February 5, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But, any redress under law does not recognize that a special exception should be made to the law to count his vote, even though it was cast and submitted in error."
Got a cite?
First, the voter is not seeking redress here. Norm Coleman is, and election contests exist to ensure that all ballots are properly counted and the election was administer properly. So, it's kind of irrelevant what remedy the jailbird could seek under law.
Second, the law is quite clear on this point. Minn. Stat. 203B.06 Sub. 2 states, "If for any reason an application for absentee ballots is submitted to the wrong county auditor or municipal clerk, that official shall promptly forward it to the proper county auditor or municipal clerk." Emphasis added.
Now, there are facts we don't know. We don't know if the jailbird wrote his correct registration address on his ballot application. If he did not, I will happily agree that the election officials made no mistake in sending him the ballot for the county where he is jailed. But if he put his correct address on the application, the officials failed in their duty to forward the application to the correct county.
Since the voter is not seeking redress but Norm Coleman is seeking all proper votes to be counted, it is perfectly reasonable to count this as a properly cast ballot.
I would not argue for counting his other votes on the ballot, but since this is a statewide race, it is acceptable.
February 6, 2009 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't reject this guy's vote because he was in jail. He got a ballot and he voted. They rejected the vote because the ballot was from a county where he did not reside.
He should have checked the ballot. Voters ARE responsible to make sure they vote correctly.
February 5, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the thing, Cal, if he did not vote in the wrong county intentionally, then it's not his fault. If he filled out his absentee ballot application appropriately, it is not his fault that he received the wrong ballot.
I don't know where you all are getting this idea that "voters are responsible for voting properly." By that standard, tons of votes shouldn't be counted. If someone doesn't mark their ballot correctly, their vote shouldn't be counted. If someone misunderstands the ballot instructions, their vote should not be counted.
You're setting up a standard that would disenfranchise people unnecessarily. The goal of voting laws is to ensure that everyone gets to vote and the process is reasonably organized to prevent fraud--that is to enfranchise and not disenfranchise.
Unless you all can demonstrate some fraud in this case, your argument isn't very strong. The guy made a mistake, that is not fraud.
February 6, 2009 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the party confined in the jail of one county was quite likely NOT a resident of that county, because his presence—due to incarceration of less than one year, and pre-trial at that—could not reasonably be construed to represent residency, particularly if he had not 'abandoned' his residency in the adjacent county in an irrevocable, written manner.
Being there does not equate to being a resident for the purposes of voting, registering a vehicle, obtaining a drivers license, benefiting from available public welfare programs, or for any other administrative purpose, in most jurisdictions.
It is pitifully silly and rather pathetically sad that a Republican candidates attorney—one with a demonstrated historic lack of care for the rights of individual voters—would trot out such a witness before the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. Keep it up, Ginsberg: you are will on the way to a directed dismissal of your claims…
February 5, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Minnesota, 20 days residence in a precinct establishes your right to vote in that precinct.
February 5, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Count The Prisoner's Vote"
Seriously, this guy is too stupid to be a Senator. Minnesota should thank it's stars there's a good chance he won't be again.
I truly feel sorry for Minnesota.
February 5, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've worked with prisoners for the last decade, and in that time I've heard many stories and interacted with the prison system first hand. An important point that's been missing in this article and this discussion so far: a prisoner is totally at the mercy of jail/prison officials during incarceration. This very point is one of the key foundations of the lawsuit currently in federal court to require the State of California to provide even adequate medical care for the people incarcerated here. Despite what the right may want you to believe, prisoners have very few avenues of recourse. Prison administrators and guards are the judge, jury, and police all rolled into one.
Realistically, in the story as told in the trial, this prisoner had no recourse to get his vote counted. Perhaps, under current Minnesota law, that's not addressed; if so, I encourage the legislature to add some flexibility when counting votes by prisoners in the future. But let's all remember, many of the rights we take for granted in the U.S., including voting, can be herculean undertakings for incarcerated people. They often have to fight like hell to keep custody of children, to maintain family relationships, to vote when they're eligible and when local elections officials let them, to get their medical needs met. In short, every day can be a struggle to stay human.
Like most everyone here, I want to see Senator Franken sworn in ASAP. And I want to make sure we don't throw prisoners under the bus to make that happen.
February 5, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman's lawsuit is making increasingly arbitrary complaints. Its one thing to sue, saying that the election officials followed the wrong standards in rejecting or counting a ballot. Its quite another to sue claiming that your own prior argument for aor against a prior ballot should be overturned. He's out of do-overs and the court should slam him down whenever he tries it. On another subject, the prisoner's vote should count. It was the registrar's mistake.
February 5, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help thinking, that if it were Franken playing these games, Coleman would have had the entire Republican party screaming "Sore Loser" for the past month.
February 5, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink