Franken Team Gets Election Official To Undermine Key Coleman Claim
The Franken legal team has worked today to score some more goals against the Coleman case, watering down a key point that Norm has tried to make.
Franken lawyer David Lillehaug reviewed one particular precinct in Coleman's argument that some absentee votes were double-counted, illegitimately benefiting Al Franken, as a result of damaged ballots being copied and certain copies not being labeled properly.
Dakota County elections manager Kevin Boyle confirmed what the county's position is on this: They believe there was no double-counting here. They say that the apparent additional duplicated ballots are from votes that weren't counted to begin with on Election Night, and were only tabulated during the recount.
Coleman needs the double-counting be a simple issue, one that can be easily calculated and then corrected by just subtracting excess votes from the spreadsheet. But if the local officials insist it didn't happen in one case or another, the burden of proof goes up significantly -- if we can't definitively cite which individual votes were double-counted, this suddenly starts to look like an effort to simply chop off Franken votes by fiat.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Can Coleman get indicted already?
February 11, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there were more votes tabulated than voters signed into the polls, that should be a hint that somethings wrong...
February 11, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but that doesn't mean double counting necessarily. They should be able to match the originals without duplicates to the number of extra votes. Remember the burden of proof is on Coleman. Franken doesn't have to prove an alternative explanation, just show that there are other reasonable possibilities. It sounds like in this precinct, the issue wasn't more votes than voters, but more votes in the recount than on election night.
Coleman has to prove to a preponderance of evidence that double counting happened, and we can tell which votes those were.
February 11, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but that doesn't mean double counting necessarily. They should be able to match the originals without duplicates to the number of extra votes. Remember the burden of proof is on Coleman. Franken doesn't have to prove an alternative explanation, just show that there are other reasonable possibilities. It sounds like in this precinct, the issue wasn't more votes than voters, but more votes in the recount than on election night.
Coleman has to prove to a preponderance of evidence that double counting happened, and we can tell which votes those were.
February 11, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no examples where such a thing occurred, despite FAUX News misinformation on the subject.
February 11, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad there's no actual, you know, EVIDENCE that such a thing has occurred.
February 11, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The site is fubar today...
And SFC, it's ok, Coleman is NOT going to be Senator from MN anymore.
February 11, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dorn, are you talking about the TPM site? I'm having a terrible time with it and don't know if it's my computer or the site.
February 11, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Been gone for almost two weeks and hoped that Franken would be our MN senator by now. No such luck. When will they put a fork in the Coleman team turkey and say it is done? That senate vote is becoming hugely important.
February 11, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken's lawyers should begin each day in court by playing the tape of Coleman saying that there should be no drawn out legal hassle, for the sake of the good people of Minnesota. As Jon Stewart said in a different context, if you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values, they're hobbies.
February 11, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lillehaug had another gotcha moment that was delicious. Franken's atty showed Boyle a list of of absentee voters that Coleman objected to. Boyle then testified that Franken did not object and that but for Coleman's objection, those absentee votes would have been counted.
Now comes the great part, Lillehaug then showed Boyle a page from Coleman's website listing voters that Coleman claims Franken is seeking to disenfranchise. Many of the names on the list are those who Boyle testified that COLEMAN objected to. Great moment.
February 12, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink