Franken Lawyer: We're Still Working For Those Votes
On a conference call just now with reporters, lead Franken lawyer Marc Elias declared that the campaign isn't done yet with the voters whose ballots weren't counted under the election court's ruling today, which allowed two-dozen Franken backers' previously-rejected votes in.
Elias explained that some of the petitioners will simply have to go back and provide further affidavits and information to the court, in order to demonstrate the validity of their case. "We think that all 61 of them should be counted," said Elias. "We're pleased that the court was as careful as it was in parsing through these voters one at a time."
Elias also expressed some confidence that the world of ballots from Coleman will be shrinking, noting that ballots are being withdrawn at a faster clip as the court's rulings serve as guideposts for where things will be going, and also that both sides have agreed to drop their complaints on behalf of absentee ballots that were rejected because they arrived by mail after the election.
Elias did have one regret, though, when a reporter asked if he would do anything differently. "Packed more winter clothes," Elias said. "I didn't expect to be in Minneapolis as long as when I first came out here. But no, I don't think there's anything else that I would have done differently."
TPMDC also asked Elias for comment on Coleman lawyer Ben Ginsberg's taunts that the stimulus bill passed without Al Franken's presence despite Elias' dire warnings of what the absence of a Senator was doing to the country.
"Well look, I don't -- Ben Ginsberg's a very good lawyer, he's been brought in to spin for the Coleman campaign and he's very good at it," Elias said. "So I have a lot of respect for his ability to turn a phrase and say things like that."
The point here, Elias said, goes beyond a single example of a pending bill -- Minnesota, he says, is opting out of the constitutional system of having two Senators: "My point was only that as the nation's legislative agenda moves forward, there are going to be instances where very important, pressing business is done in the Senate, and the Senate needs a full complement of Senators."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
My comments are at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/10/17350/0471/845/695818
February 10, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why are you posting here?
February 10, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, an order issued today according to The Uptake but not yet on the Court's website. http://old.theuptake.org/documents/Order-090210.pdf
February 10, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...very interesting. It seems to stem from the scheduling meeting they had on Monday afternoon. It could indeed dispose of a hell of a lot of the absentee ballots Coleman is trying to get admitted. Is that a light at the end of the tunnel?
February 10, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should have asked him how much longer he thinks this charade could/will go on.
February 10, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have something bugging me about all this interest in absentee ballots.
1) a registered voter has to place a request for a ballot.
2) the request must be made within specified dates.
3) once the election department validates the request a ballot is mailed.
What bugs me is why doesn't the election department print ballots with bar codes? Those bar coded ballots could then be assigned to a specific registered voter requesting a ballot. Once the ballot is send in, the bar code is read which indicates a vote was made. Such a tracking system would eliminate second guessing about missing ballots ... for every ballot received there should be a vote to match.
February 10, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do NOT want a system that can identify a ballot to an individual. If there is a way to know how someone voted, it is guaranteed that someone, somehow, somewhere will exploit that information.
In Oregon all ballots are mailed out, and mailed back in or dropped off (except for limited exceptions, there are no voting machines).
The ballot goes into a secrecy ballot, without markings, specifically so it cannot be tracked to a specific voter. The sealed secrecy envelope is placed into a second envelope, that requires the voter's name, address and signature. When the ballot is received the name and address are checked against the records, and the signature is matched to the one on file. If everything checks out, the secrecy ballot is placed in the pile to be counted, but not opened until election day. The fact that the vote was received is a matter of public record and can be reviewed online. I suspect most people never bother to check.
If there is a problem, the election office attempts to contact the voter by phone and/or mail, and has until ten days after the election to fix any problem, and count the vote.
A bar code, by itself, doesn't add anything to the process. It may be able to be processed a bit faster than a signature, but bar codes can be forged, and mail can be stolen or misdelivered. Anybody who gets a hold of someone else's ballot, could fill it in and vote, if no signature was required. Even if the voter realized they never received their ballot, if a ballot was received they could not prove that they didn't mail their ballot in, then changed their mind, unless they could show that the ballot did not contain their signature.
Out of millions of ballots it is guaranteed that a few will get lost, missed, or mishandled. Some will get lost and never registered. Some will get registered and then lost, missed or mishandled.
The better (idealistic) remedy is to have better educated and informed voters. If people understood the issues, it is less likely that they would split exactly 50-50, which is what you get when you flip a coin.
February 10, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Coleman seems to be able to connect people to ballots.
What I was saying is identify a voter to a bar coded ballot that was sent out and received. That way they would know exactly how many ballots were issued to registered voters. It makes the process of identifying the number of ballots received to the number counted.
What I'm hearing about the Franklin race is ballots mysteriously appearing or ones that are lost and so forth. In short, they need some kind of tracking system so as to keep the mentally incompetent, such as Coleman, from wasting time in the court system just to see election officials running in circles and chasing their tail.
February 11, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great idea. I also think regular voters should get a receipt with an unique ID code, time stamp and their vote choices. The voter could then go to a website and verify their vote by looking up the unique ID number.
February 10, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
so now when i buy your vote, you can give me your receipt. Then I know whether to pay you or break your thumbs, instead of having to guess.
February 10, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be lost in the woods. I know many people who toss their absentee ballots in the trash. So there's nothing stopping me or anyone else from retrieving it and voting for them. Coleman is setting a precedent where matching signature no long are relevant.
February 11, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there is. You'd have to match their signature on file with the ballot application. That's the whole point of matching signatures.
Coleman is able to match people with their ballot ENVELOPE. Once that envelope is opened, the ballot goes into the pile with all the others and no one can tell which is which. That's the essence of the secret ballot.
You could put bar codes on the envelopes, but I don't see what that would accomplish. They already know to whom ballots were sent and from whom they were received. That's not the problem.
February 11, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink