Coleman Team Fires Back At Franken's List Of Ballots
A funny dynamic right now in the Minnesota election trial is how both campaigns have lists of rejected absentee ballots that they're trying to get reconsidered for admission -- and both of them have set out to demonstrate how the other guy's catalog is complete garbage.
Earlier this morning in the Minnesota trial, Coleman lawyer Joe Friedberg went through some of Franken's current list with Anoka County elections manager Rachel Smith, having her affirm that there were various problems within the Anoka section: The ballots had arrived late, were missing voter signatures, or witness signatures, etc. Franken's team hasn't had the chance to cross-examine Smith yet, so we'll see how they do on these votes.
It's to be expected that the vast majority of re-reviewed ballots from both sides will have some serious problems -- and Coleman's certainly have -- as most of them were rejected at least a second time by local officials during a separate review this past December. The issue here is more about what might happen if any leniency ends up being brought to the process, such as forgiving an error if it's determined to have been an election official's fault, not the voter's.
Coleman's list started out at 654, and has now expanded to 4,797 with the court's permission. Franken's team started at 771 ballots, and they have a pending request to expand their group after Coleman got to do it. And of course, both sides' lists so far have come from their own geographic strongholds, as well. So this will take a while.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Even if Franken gets not a single additional ballot counted, he forces Coleman to argue for a standard that his own ballots can't meet. Win-win.
February 6, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is utterly ridiculous. This court is treating this litigation like it's a run of the mill lawsuit, in other words without any urgency at all. Except, in a normal lawsuit, Coleman's shenangians (presenting obviously tainted evidence, making competing and even contradictory claims, bringing up additional arguments after the questions have been ruled on, etc. etc., etc.) would have had his case dismissed, and possibly resulted in sanctions against Coleman and his attorneys.
The way this is going, Franken will be up for re-election before he gets seated.
Is ther any outcry against the way this travesty is being handled in the Minnesota papers?
February 6, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many Minnesotans so far have repeatedly said "We Are Not Florida".
Well guess what Minnesota, you may be WORSE than Florida.
At least Florida picked a winner. In any other state Franken would already be a seated Senator. Just not Minnesota.
February 6, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know what you're talking about. Other states have had recounts go on for months.
No there's no outcry yet, because Coleman's delaying tactics have succeeded in causing all but intense partisans to tune out, and the national media have tuned out. Nothing will happen until the media start pointing out that the judges have lost control of the trial.
February 6, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
These posts are getting tiresome. It's always the same comments and the same issues. I'll be really glad when this bs is over. I mean really, I could write the same posts over and over again. Coleman delaying and screwing around. The stand up raising a stink because coleman is delaying and screwing around. I mean give me a break. Same old, same old.
February 6, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad we're being kept up to date. This is an importatn story that isn't being covered anywhere else.
See my comment above. If you want to blame anyone, blame the court. They are letting Coleman abuse the process shamelessly and without any penalty whatsoever.
I earlier compared the Minnesota panel to Judge Ito in the OJ trial. I stand by that comparison.
February 6, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
One a day would be plenty. I just wanted to chime in my two cents for what it's worth. I actually don't care one way or the other to be quite franken. I'm more worried about all the other stuff going on.
February 6, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speak for yourself. I'm enjoying this. The latest update on Colemsn's suit is the first thing I look for when I come to the TPM site.
February 6, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it really long past time the US figured out how to wrap up a close election. I remember during the Florida recount Canada managed to have most of a full election campaign, an election and an outcome. Involving a roughly comparable number of voters spread out over a heck of a lot more territory. Canada uses paper ballots, marked with a pencil.
February 6, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons for this is that we use districts with much higher populations than other countries typically employ.
A British district might have about 40,000 voters. A Canadian district could have 50,000. And in Australia, the number is about 85,000 — and that's with mandatory voting under Aussie law.
The Minnesota Senate race involves 2.9 million ballots, and a difference of around 200 votes between the top two candidates.
February 6, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink