Coleman Lawyer: "We Made A Horrendous Error" In Vetoing That Ballot -- Please Count It
In the Minnesota trial today, lead Coleman lawyer Joe Friedberg made a very frank admission: The Coleman campaign made a mistake in personally rejecting a ballot they now want opened up and counted.
This all goes back to the state Supreme Court's controversial decision for how to deal with wrongly-rejected ballots, which gave the campaigns a veto power over each individual ballot as the local officials sorted through them again back in December.
It has been repeatedly shown during this trial that the Coleman camp's newer list of ballots that they say were wrongly thrown out -- indeed, their Web page about the issue describes "the thousands of Minnesotans the Franken campaign is seeking to disenfranchise" -- includes multiple votes that their own campaign specifically vetoed before.
But now Friedberg said of one particular ballot: "We made a horrendous error by challenging it, and I assume you would agree." After some more back and forth, he added: "But just so it's to be understood, we want the ballot to be opened and counted."
As I've previously pointed out, the Republican Party's phone calls to check how people voted, and to select them for inclusion as Coleman witnesses, didn't happen until after the vetoing process. So Team Coleman was missing data at the time for how some people had voted.
Also during the trial today, Franken lawyer David Lillehaug revisited the case of Peter DeMuth, a Coleman-voter whose ballot was rejected because he'd used his computer to "sign" his initials on the absentee ballot application, then later put his true signature on the ballot envelope in the old-fashioned way. During his testimony, DeMuth said he did this because he didn't want to pay money to print out a copy of the application at his college.
"Do you know how much it costs to print a piece of paper at North Dakota State University?" Lillehaug rhetorically asked state Elections Director Gary Poser. Obviously, Poser didn't know the answer, so Lillehaug produced it: "It's 3 cents a page, after you exhaust 500 pages."
Lillehaug then asked Coleman's lawyers if they would stipulate to this fact. They did, but Lillehaug made sure to add that he has a copy of the university's printing policy, and is declining to formally introduce it into evidence because of Coleman's stipulation.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
The fact that both sides know which way the absentee ballots voted by contacting the voters has mucked up the process. Their decision before knowing which way the vote went should be upheld.
This is going to be a real mess in appeals.
February 24, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This gives vote rigging a whole new meaning. First give each candidate the power to veto ballots they think might go against them. Then let them check with voters so they can correct any flaws in their earlier judgement.
With this system the only way you get a winner is if when a candidate asks who a voter supports the guy who voted against him lies.
Coleman is just monkeying around and daring the court to get pissed off and throw him out. Then he could cry about how he was abused by activist liberal judges.
February 24, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine Coleman bribing absentee voters?
February 24, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no faith in these Judges anymore.
February 24, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your lack of faith is misplaced. The fact that Coleman may argue for admission of ballots once rejected doesn't mean the judges will grant his request. Their history indicates they will listen politely, then rule against him. Every decision they have issued indicates they are doing what judges overwhelmingly do; they are basing decisions on what the law says. And the law says stipulations become the rule of the case, and are rarely overturned. If BOTH parties make a mutual error, it may be grounds for reconsideration. If only one party errs on a specific matter, the stipulation is upheld. That's the basis of our adversarial judicial system. You are entitled to your day in court, but you are not entitled to a perfect presentation, only the presentation you actually present. Do-overs are highly disfavored, and finality trumps perfect accuracy.
February 24, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
jonze's lack of faith in the judges isn't 'misplaced', it's completely apropos of nothing. much like most of his kvetching.
mush as you say, allowing coleman to exhaust every last ridiculous argument is not the same as finding that those arguments have any merit. and it doesn't lead to a messier appeal, it actually helps to prevent additional avenues for appeal.
February 24, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds all right, until the case is someone wrongly convicted of capital murder. I know that is not relevant to this case, but I did want to point it out.
February 24, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had no intention of suggesting that I agree with the principle. I recite it only for those who aren't familiar with the underlying tenets of our judicial system. Capital cases are only one extreme example. As a domestic relations attorney, I consider it malpractice to not warn every client that on any given day, in any given case, there is a possibility that a judge could make a wrong decision affecting their relationship with their children and their economic future. I tell them that the only decision I can guarantee a judge won't screw up is the question s/he isn't asked to answer.
Factor in attorney error, client error and inequalities caused by economic and educational disparity and you have a system that works quite well overall, but is by no means error-free. I do believe that the general trend in law - and I mean over centuries, not any given decade or so - is toward improvement and increased fairness, but we still have a long way to go.
February 24, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why that Supreme Court decision making the candidates agree was genius. Remember, this was only about a select few ballots that had been wrongfully rejected. They made the candidates agree so they couldn't come back later and complain.
Of course, Norm is complaining. But it makes it look pretty silly.
February 24, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
i suspect all the campaign vetoed ballots are going to be opened eventually anyways. which is the only way this one should be.
February 24, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd take that bet. The court only considered unopened ballots that all agreed to. I'm not sure the court had authority to order any additional ballots to be considered, so it limited itself to those that the parties agreed to, because that a decision like that is difficult to appeal, due to the invited error. For this court to order the vetoed ballots opened now would make irrelevant much of what they've done over the past several weeks, and courts are not prone to make more work for themselves or overrule their own rulings. So only a higher court would overrule the original ruling, and that is far from probable.
February 24, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A quibble: The decision to allow absentee ballots by way of candidate consensus was a *recount* decision. The current case is an election contest matter which could easily warrant a review and reversal at this level of any recount methods.
But of course some "vetoed" ballots would be manifestly not suitable for opening, so you'd win the bet on a technicality at least.
February 24, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh No! 3 cents a page! golly gee... most colleges/universities are 8-10 cents a page, and you don't have a 500-page freebie at the beginning.
Seriously, I'm a grad student, printing journal articles (up to 40 pages) all the time and in 2 years I doubt I've printed too much more than 500 pages.... in my entire undergrad I reckon I printed, maybe 100, 150 pages. tops.
Jesus
February 24, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink