Coleman Lawyer Gets Called Out On Evidence -- By Judge
A very awkward moment just happened in the Minnesota Senate trial. Judge Kurt Marben, as opposed to a Franken lawyer, actively asked about a problem with the photocopy of an absentee ballot that Coleman lawyer Joe Friedberg was presenting, which was missing the section where a voter would list proof of residence.
Friedberg said that this was how they received the document itself from the county. This led to a very uncomfortable exchange between the lawyers, the judges and even the witness Kevin Corbid, the head elections official in Washington County, lasting for several minutes.
Judge Denise Reilly chimed in: "The issue is it was rejected for proof of residence, and the part of the ballot showing proof of residence is the part that's been cut off." Corbid added that it was possible that the proof of residence was removed when a separate flap was torn off of the envelope, accidentally taking that section with it.
Who knows.
On the other hand, Coleman has managed to make some headway today in his fundamental legal claim.
Friedberg has been examining Corbid, whose county voted for Coleman 47%-37%. Corbid is a real stickler for the rules -- he does not believe that mistakes by elections officials would release the voter from satisfying the relevant requirements. He also believes that the law requires a valid driver's license number to be included in the proof of residence section on the forms.
By contrast, different opinions on those exact questions were given over the last few days from Joe Mansky, the elections director in the Democratic stronghold of Ramsey County. This boosts Coleman's case that the statewide rules are being applied differently, and this has resulted in a constitutional violation wherein election officials in pro-Coleman areas have been keeping out votes that might have put him ahead.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Are the laws in Minnesota written in Latin? Why is it so difficult for a plain reading of the statute to determine whether or not a driver's license number is required?
February 3, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Driving shouldn't be a prerequisite for voting. Not so common in today's MN perhaps, but there are lots of folks who don't drive. Maybe the true meaning is driver's license or state ID.
But yeah, that requirement should be a pretty easy one to resolve and it's insane if this wasn't addressed either in a plain reading of the law or in the instructions the state board issued for the recount.
February 3, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pig Latin. "A iver'sday icenselay isay equiredray." Section 45, paragraph 2. Anyone could miss it.
February 3, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
a diver's license?
I mean I have one of those too but... really?
February 3, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was completely joking on the section parts (using it as a goofy counter for my Pig Latin), but, yeah, often states require licenses for verification of voting eligibility in part, and as a subtle way to discourage the poor (or minorities) to vote in part.
Requiring licenses was a hot topic about 3 or 4 years ago when I lived in Arizona. Republicans were 'worrying' that illegals were voting and Dems were concerned that requiring licenses would discourage the poor (since many of them don't drive, and having to trek down to the DMV for an id was often a step that they wouldn't get to do and so never vote.)
February 3, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL yer killin me.
February 3, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fire Corbid and take away his drivers license as punishment. Then toss all the absentee ballots, rejected it not, in his county with drivers license identifiers on them.
February 3, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I work in Washington county. This doesn't surprise me because people here are tools. The courts are an embarrassment. This is Michelle Bachmann territory, too.
February 3, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
WCCO Radio is reporting that the judges WILL allow a look at approx. 5000 ballots---sounds like a solid score for Norm. He may finagle his way back to the Senate yet. Look at what LBJ did in Texas in 1948--described by Robert Caro in "Means of Ascent."
February 3, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
How the hell would they know how judges will decide? Besides, it was Norm who was trying to keep ballots from being counted. No reason these ones might not before Franken anyway.
February 3, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
WCCO is wrong. Big surprise, I know. Even assuming there was some ruling that required counting more absentee ballots (which there is not), it is very unlikely it would benefit Coleman. Remember the last batch of absentees that were counted right before the end of the recount? Guess who got more votes? Not Norm.
February 3, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman's theory is that, in pro-Coleman areas, the rules are enforced more strictly, so we should take another look at these areas for votes. Of course, the enforcement of these rules disproportionately impacts poor voters, which is part of what makes those areas more pro-Coleman in the first place...
February 3, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but only reexamining ballots from SOME areas would be exactly what lost Gore the 2000 selection. If Coleman were dam-fool enough to do that, and actually pick up enough votes, Franken should definitely take it to the Supremes.
February 3, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't worry about that. These judges have been nothing if not painstakingly thorough and fair. If any ballots are found to have been rejected improperly, then all ballots rejected for that reason will be examined. What we're seeing now is Coleman's case. Franken will get his chance afterward.
February 3, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. What he said.
Patience, Grasshopper.
February 3, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Eric! I live for these updates. I'm as addicted to this case as my mother is to the Caylee Anthony case, and for pretty much the same reason: they both have that morbid slow-motion train wreck fascination!
And you don't make me grind my teeth the way Nancy disGrace does!
February 3, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
As has already been pointed out but needs repeating, how can a requirement such as a drivers license be a legal prerequisite to vote?
How can such a legal requirenment even be on the books? The persons who write such laws should be fired for incompetence. Citizens need to have a say when it comes to having obviously stupid people running things. We desperately need a mechanism that provides for citizens to exercise some form of immediate recourse when our public officials totally mess up. You can't have a system where a central authority is allowed to screw up without acknowledging that such screw ups must be immediately reconciled. We have been subjected to too many monumental screw ups that have seriously harmed the nation without a single person being held to account for it. We simply cannot continue tolerating this. I hope I'm not the only person who recognizes this invites a total collapse of government.
February 4, 2009 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your aggravation with the driver's license and state ID issue, but at the same time, it's kind of silly to have a voting roll if you can't verify who's on it. Maybe state IDs should be free as a way of enfranchising the poor.
I did election monitoring in Bangladesh, and each voter had to be agreed upon by a majority of the party monitors (everybody would go is a small room and yell for five minutes, fascinating). Problem is, the dominant party could bribe the small party monitors, or even create extra parties, so they could secure a majority and decide who votes and who doesn't--and at the village level, everybody knew who was Awami or BNP. They finally issued IDs for this election to clear up the problem. IDs are good things.
February 4, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
ID is OK but whatever form the ID takes it has to be 100% applicable to the entire population. As in our case where the drivers license had been used that isn't the case. Thus some persons had no means to demonstate to the pollsters who they were via the state established mechanism. That is why I said what I did. I stick by my statement. We have a bunch of dumb bastards running things who should be fired for their stupidity. You can't estabish a criteria that can't be met.
February 6, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink