Coleman Lawyer Still Advocating For Forgers
Fun fact: Every court in the state of Minnesota is closed today for the federal holiday -- except the Senate election court.
Today it was very much abbreviated, though. The attorneys spent the morning with the judges in closed negotiations over how to sort through the evidence, then the court held a short 18-minute session.
And even during that 18 minutes, it turns out, lead Coleman lawyer Joe Friedberg was still looking for a loophole to allow forgery. Friedberg presented five ballot envelopes where he admitted a person other than the voter signed the ballot application form. But, he said, it had been done with the "knowledge and authority" of the voter, and was thus a legitimate, genuine signature.
Friedberg did not give any indication that the voters in these cases were disabled or otherwise physically unable to sign their forms, which is the specific statutory exception to allow someone else to sign in one's own name. Without that, the court's opinion from Friday forbade the counting of these votes -- indeed, they singled out one of Coleman's witnesses as an example of this kind of illegal voter.
But Friedberg still seems to be pushing ahead on forgery.
The post-court press conferences also contained some important news. After Friday's ruling severely limited Coleman's chances to find new votes -- the campaign's official estimate is that they're down to a pool of 3,300 ballots, though as we saw above that number might still be inflated -- Coleman is now filing a letter to ask the court to reconsider the opinion.
Coleman lawyer and spokesman Ben Ginsberg explained that the campaign wants the decision reconsidered because there have been previous cases of rejected absentee ballots that were later allowed in and counted, but which he says would have been forbidden under the new decision. Remember that the Coleman camp's position is that it's a violation of Equal Protection if a certain kind of illegal vote is counted in one part of the state, but excluded in another.
When a reporter asked Ginsberg if it would be unusual for the court to so quickly reverse its decision after handing it down, he replied: "Well, I don't think there's anything typical in a case like this, where you have a three-judge panel in an election case.
Lead Franken lawyer Marc Elias used his own presser as an opportunity to ridicule the Coleman camp: "Between one-quarter and one-third of the universe disappeared. Whole galaxies, just poof. Let's be glad the Milky Way survived."
(Press conferences c/o The Uptake.)
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Currently, I'm using my former employers medical coverage under COBRA. If my payment arrives one day late my coverage ends. I asked if the envelope was postmarked before the cutoff date but arrived late would it count? ... the answer was no - it had to be in their office on the final day. So I can lose my medical coverage if my letter get lost in the mail regardless of my good intentions to follow the rules.
So why is it Coleman is desperately trying to count ballots that the voter failed to follow the rules in good faith? Why the hell are the justices allowing such arguments to be posed?
February 16, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typically, judges won't stop a party from posing an argument, but judges can reject that argument either immediately or after a careful decision. In this case, the court has heard a lot of foolishness from Coleman's team and Friday it issued a substantial opinion rejecting most of those arguments. Now Coleman is asking for a reconsideration. Again, he can ask. Not likely to be granted.
Once the court has ruled, it will prevent Coleman from arguing something contrary to "the law of the case," which are prior decisions by the court.
In short, Coleman's avenues are being limited, and will probably be limited further, as he continues to propound stupid arguments.
February 16, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Short Answer: Desperation
At this point they've got nothing to lose so their trying to roll the dice by allowing a bunch of previously rejected ballots be counted -- even though they actively rejected them during the recount.
At this point what do they really have to lose? Worst case scenario for them is that they still lose. So why not try to gamble with the outcome and, at the same time, play the "we're trying to get every vote counted" card to garner public opinion.
February 16, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, pretty much this election has proven that if a candidate does not volunteerily concede, then he or she can keep the process on-going indefinitely so long as the vote count is close enough?
Is this a major loophole in our election law??
February 16, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the very least, it's a major loophole in Minnesota's election law.
February 16, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric...great job for staying on top of this most insane story and drama!
February 16, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second.
I'd like to add: thanks for illuminating how innaccurate election results might sometimes be..."Man of the Year" is starting to look like a documentary.
February 16, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh jeez, what a terrible movie. A totally unintentional "bug" in the election software causes the machines to award victory based on the spelling of the candidates' names!? Like, it pays no attention to the votes or arithmetic in general, at all? This of course escapes whatever testing there may have been, and of course there are no exit polls or precinct-level results that don't square. Oh, and apparently all states now use the same system, which is centrally administered; I guess the electoral college was abolished. So unbelievably stupid. And don't even get me started on this useless, helpless, screaming/crying "whistleblower" and the president of the effing USA running around trying to rescue her.
The first part of the movie, during the campaign, was decently funny. Then they threw in this absolutely banal assault on my intelligence, and now I'm dumber for having watched it. Couldn't they just have Robin Williams become president and live happily ever after?
February 16, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third.
February 16, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've got a long way to go if Coleman is advancing an argument on behalf of people who admittedly didn't sign their absentee ballots.
If Franken didn't need to be in DC so much, this would be a pretty interesting case to watch. But, we need the 59th vote.
February 16, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is called Minnesota Nice. Which is a moronic contradiction most people who move to MN do not immediately realize. It's being polite, rather cool, but outwardly friendly. When you get to know the turf you realize they are doing everything possible to further their own interests and keeping you out, beneath the surface while acting so nice. Can't call them on it directly since they are so "nice".
Which is why this election process is an on-going process. They are all too "nice" to quit.
February 16, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are on to us. If you are born here, when you turn 12 years old, you are told of the secret plot surrounding Minnesota Nice. Don't even try to get ahead here, we won't allow it.
February 16, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman's attorney is correct. They are not forgeries. Forgery is a legal term of art. If I authorize somebody to sign my name, it is as if I signed it myself and it is not a forgery. The issue is not whether I signed it, the issue is whether I authorized the signature.
Now, the minnesota statute is a whole different matter, but the issue is not advocating on behalf of forgery, because these signatures are not forgeries if they were authorized.
February 16, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang it, Michael A, you beat me to it. Coleman's strategies have been nothing but despicable, desperate attempts to somehow steal an election that he narrowly, but fairly, lost. However, please do drop the inflammatory use of the term "forgery." Michael A., who I have to assume is also a lawyer, defined the problem of using "forgery" very succinctly.
Look, using inappropriate, outrageous rhetoric is what the "Lying Liars" do. Our side should be above it, at least when it is pointed out as being incorrect.
I figure Al is sworn in by the end of the month, end of March at worst.
February 16, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
My son, lost his vote, because he did not fill out and sign his absentee ballot correctly.If a ballot is out of state and you do not have another registered MN voter to witness your ballot you need to go to a public notary. He realized his mistake too late and accepted the fact that he did not follow procedure correctly. Norm has to accept the rules as my son did. I was an election judge the last 2 presidential elections and I think my fellow judges and I did a very good job. No one showed any kind of inkling as to their party affiliation
February 16, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it really comes down to what the meaning of is, is, right? If someone signs your signature that's not you, it is a forgery, even if authorized. The question is, is the forgery legal or illegal?
February 16, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the problem, no it is not a forgery. If the signature is authorized, regardless of who signs it, it is not a forgery. That is a common misunderstanding of the use of the term. It doesn't matter who signs the signature. The issue is authorization. Authorized, legitimate no matter who wrote out the signature. Unauthorized, forgery.
February 16, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
ON a legal document, you are right. But there are specific rules that apply to absentee ballots. You have to sign it for comparison. There are exceptions for the disabled. That is it.
I can authorize you to sign my checks, but I cannot authorize you to sign my ballot application. Sorry.
February 16, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you and that is what I have been saying, but it's not a forgery. It's an invalid ballot.
February 16, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been following these daily updates and it seems to me the window is narrowing by the day and the court will hand Norm his ass soon. And while I've been guilty of railing about this dragging on forever, it should be noted that Norm has been the loser for a shorter time to date than Al was the announced loser after election day. From Nov 4 through Jan 4, Norm was percieved to have won, Al got his recount and was declared the winner.
On the merits, most of the challenges are preposterous, but I suspect the court is gving lengthy consideration to Norm's challenges as a part of the same process that allowed the recount to take a couple of months.
By allowing all this stuff now, they are perhaps also shortening or even avoiding the next step of appeal.
February 16, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: It wasn't a matter of "Al got his recount." We the voters got our recount, as required by statute. If the the final, statewide returns reported to the canvassing board fall within a certain margin---I think it's 1/2 of 1%, then there is an automatic recount. So it was just as much Norm's recount as it was Al's, but really is wasn't proprietary to either of them (or the three other guys on the ballot for Senate!)
February 16, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if signing a name that is not yours is Ok can I authorize someone else to vote for me at the actual poll or the registration. If we do not hold absentee voters to a standard why should we hold actual voters at the polls to a standard? Richard Daley of Boss Tameny would love this!
February 16, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that is the point with minnesota's election law prohibiting someone else from signing a voter's name on a ballot except in certain circumstances. Coleman's attorney is arguing that since the signatures were authorized, its as if the person signed the ballots themselves, but that is contrary to minnesota election law and is actually irrelevant. Coleman's attorney is just trying to push a square peg into a round hole by arguing about authorization.
The issue is not whether the signatures were "forgeries," as they were not since the signatures allegedly were authorized. It's just the use of the term that is at issue. The ballots are presumably invalid under minnesota election law, which is the issue.
February 16, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know if the court is using the term "forgery" or if is is just reporters such as our friend Eric?
If it's the latter after it's been clarfiied several times in these threads that it is an incorrect term to use for the legal application here, then that's pretty lazy reporting by Mr. Kleefeld.
February 16, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guarantee that the court is not using the term forgery, because the signatures are alleged to be authorized, so they are not forgeries. The ballots are invalid under minnesota election law because they were not signed by the voter and the voter did not fall within one of the exceptions to the signing requirement. Coleman's lawyer is trying to skirt minnesota election law and the ballots are invalid. That is the critical point.
February 16, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who may be "authorized" in this case is defined in Minnesota election law. To wit:
ballot signed by another when voter is NOT "disabled or otherwise physically unable to sign" == signature NOT authorized.
Forgery is an appropriate term given this clear definition of authorization.
February 16, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, that's taking it even one more step beyond. Look up the legal definition of the term forgery. Does the statute use the term? I seriously doubt it. The authorizing party is the person whose signature is being signed concerning the issue of forgery. Now is the ballot invalid? Absolutely, because it does not comply with minnesota election law concerning the signing of a ballot, but it's not a "forgery."
February 16, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael A-- You seem to be very strident in marking a distinction without difference. You admit that the ballots in question-- those for which the signature was affixed by someone other than the absentee voter-- should rightly be disallowed. Your main point of contention seems to be that continued reference to such signatures as forgeries is inappropriate in a legal sense, since the "forgery" of signatures was ostensibly "authorized".
But what evidence is sufficient to indicate to a neutral observer-- say, an election official-- that the mismatched signature was duly "authorized"? Absent some explicit mark that the signatory was not, in fact, the absentee voter (e.g., the actual signer's initials, at minimum), doesn't that indicate an intent to deceive-- i.e., to commit forgery?
Whether the actual, authorizing absentee voter was complicit and accepting of the act seems irrelevant to me, since the aim is the same: "Let's ignore the rules and try to fool the vote counters." Your objection to applying the artful legal definition of forgery to those ballots trivializes the offense by comparison to, say, evidently criminal acts of forgery such as fraudulently signing a check drawn on another persons account.
I'll admit to feeling a bit out on a soap box here, but I will assert that such wanton disregard of the rules that govern our elections procedures are at least as grievous as stealing money by means of forging signatures on checks. Left unchecked (no pun intended), the blithe acceptance of such practices threatens the integrity of the voting process and should not be so casually dismissed. It is forgery, plain and simple.
February 17, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
My mother, a lawyer, used to have me sign for her with some frequency starting as a kid. However I was never told to make a fake signature of her name, which I would call a forgery, I was instructed to sign my own name and then add "for" or "authorized by" her name.
But that wouldn't get the ballot counted here, I suspect. So it's at least arguable as plain English that signing someone else's name, even if authorized, is still a forgery in that it is an attempt to deceive, to pretend that this is the real signature of the person. Authorized or not, it's not a genuine signature. And if the law demands a genuine signature, then the voter doesn't have authority to authorize forgery.
February 16, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, this is so frustrating, no it is not an attempt to deceive, if it is authorized. That is the problem.
Let me present a hypothetical. Husband is at work and wife calls and says the absentee ballots have to be mailed today. Husband says ok, vote for franken for me and sign my ballot for me. Is that a forgery? No. Is there an intent to deceive? No, of course not. However, is the ballot invalid under minnesota law, absolutely.
Should the wife be tarred as a "forger" in the press and that coleman is trying to defend criminal "forgers" like the wife???? No, of course not. That is absurd and that is the point.
Incidentally, this is absolutely no disrespect to your mother, but I am willing to guess that she was a legal secretary before she was a lawyer. My legal secretaries, the older ones, again no disrespect, used to do the same thing and it used to piss me off. It was basically a cya for the legal secretaries, so they thought and that's why the older ones, again no disrespect, did that.
February 16, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never heard the term Minnesota Nice until I retired here to CO Spgs. Having been back to visit last fall I must contradict the comment implying MN Not Nice. What Minnesotans are is "different", you just have to learn MN Speak.
February 16, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, if you allow someone to sign something FOR you, it is not forgery.
It may violate the rules about voting, which makes sense, because only if you can match the signatures can you easily AVOID forgery.
But "forgery" is a crime, and this is not "forgery."
February 16, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for repeating what others have said before reading all the comments.
But again, these folks are not being charged with criminal violations of voting laws.
They just did NOT follow the rules of valid voting. And Coleman's lawyers are blowing smoke.
February 16, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of you seem to think you see a light at the end of the tunnel. I have to laugh. Team Coleman has not yet begun to plumb the depths of their obstructionism. The story today is not the five ballots introduced - it's the letter referenced towards the end of this story.
Here's a partial summary of its points from Coleman's own Blog:
"The letter notes that the Court's conclusion in its February 13, 2009 Order that "it must enforce the comprehensive statutory scheme governing absentee balloting in accordance with its unambiguous terms.” The standards the Court has now announced, however, contradicts what was done on:
...
On election day itself, when 87 counties and scores of municipalities opened some 280,000 ballots, a material number of which did not meet these standards.
As a result, there are certainly hundreds, and likely thousands, of votes already counted that under the Court’s February 13, 2009 Order were not legally cast votes, creating a statewide problem of elementary fairness and equal protection."
February 16, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that Coleman announces loud and clear his intention to examine EVERY ONE of the 280,000 absentee ballots counted on Election Day to show some did not meet the criteria established by Friday's ruling.
February 16, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.colemanforsenate.com/blog-post/561/election-contest-ruling-will-result-in-inconsistent-standards%2C-violate-equal-protection
February 16, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn activist judges!
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. Really now, judges do have a duty to do their duty don't they. In this case that duty is to determine if the ballot count counts. So, why don't they do so? By now anything that could possibly be relevant to the process has already been discussed and disposed of, so what possible hold up is there, other than the desire of the judges to stay in the limelight?
February 17, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Coleman is unable to prevail in his tactic of attempting to get cherry-picked (Coleman voter) absentee ballots counted by this court, he will surely appeal to the next court. He's been given a green light by Republican powers that be to go all the way. Sadly, I don't see Franken moving to Washington any time soon. Coleman hopes to drag this out for as long as possible. It will probably continue through the summer and into the fall - possibly longer.
February 17, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink