Is Coleman Team Giving Up On The Noble Cause Of Forgery?
One important development may have just come from legal arguments by Coleman lawyer James Langdon: He has definitively stated that the Coleman camp does not want to include fraudulent ballots, despite some past arguments that have gone on.
Langdon did say that the burden of proof for fraud, which would lead to ballot rejection, has to be very high. After all, a voter is signing both an application and a ballot envelope, which certify that they are legal voters under penalty of a felony charge.
"We will not play loosey-goosey here," said Langdon. "We will not countenance anything that constitutes fraud or the possibility of fraud. But we will believe that Minnesota's voters say what they believe and believe what they say, like Horton the Elephant."
As an example of a specific case where evidence of improper behavior exists, he mentioned Douglas Thompson, the friendly Coleman witness who testified in court that his girlfriend forged his signature on the absentee-ballot application, and who said his ballot should be counted because he signed the actual ballot envelope.
That's a huge reversal from Coleman lawyer Joe Friedberg, who said he didn't care about the procedures in Thompson's case, or Friedberg's other attempt to admit that one person had illegally signed and cast two ballots, but one of them should be counted.
Langdon also argued that absentee voters must not be held to a standard of total compliance, if it can be shown that they had genuine reason to believe they were doing it right. The best example of this would be if the voter traveled to the county office to cast the absentee vote in person, just to be sure they were doing it properly, and the clerk at the desk accepted the ballot without noticing that they weren't getting it right.
A part of this discussion about flawed or missing absentee ballot applications led to this awkward exchange with Judge Denise Reilly:
Langdon: "And I see that you are not buying this, Judge Reilly."
(Laughter)
Reilly: I thought I had a poker face.
(Laughter)
Langdon: Nope, I don't think so.
....
Reilly: My concern is that the legislature passed a statute, and I took an oath to uphold the law.
Langdon: Well, how are you not upholding the law?
Reilly: You know, typically judges ask questions.
(More laughter)
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
This would all be really hilarious if it were not so pathetic.
February 12, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a major development Eric at least if you approach the case on its merits.
Now if prevailing on the merits isn't the GOP objective and it isn't, this just means more extensive litigation as marshaling evidence of fraud or forgery can be a lengthy and time consuming process
February 12, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...marshaling evidence of fraud or forgery can be a lengthy and time consuming process".
Yeah. Particularly if there isn't any.
February 12, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a huge reversal, he's simply pretending he's reasonable and giving some ground. Notice how he wants a high burden for fraud, which means that he wants the cases where the voter knew and allowed somebody else to sign their name to still be counted.
And laughing and joking about this makes me want to puke.
The accepted rules state that if signatures do not match, then the ballot is rejected. It's black and white.
February 12, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to MN legislature: Next time, try early voting. It works soooo much better.
February 12, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And now, your honor, I'd like everyone to play Twister in the courtroom for the next two or three years while I figure out what my next angle is."
February 12, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "genuine reason to believe" is an utterly absurd and unworkable legal test. It would require trying to determine, after the vote was cast, the intent of every voter who submitted an invalid ballot.
I recall hearing of a case, I believe by a federal appeals court or the SCOTUS, which threw out a pro se litigant's appeal because the litigant filed the appeal based on the wrong date given by the trial judge, which was beyond the deadline to file.
Intent is irrelevant to procedural requirements.
"Do or do not. There is no try" Jedi Master Yoda
February 12, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Coleman resorting to the Horton the Elephant defense, will his next move be to claim he hears tiny voices coming from those rejected ballots begging to be opened and counted?
February 12, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny! ... Too bad, so sad that it's true.
February 12, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess if Franklin wants to figure out Coleman's next legal move, he should sit down and reread Horton Hears a Who.
February 12, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Boil that dust speck!"
"Boil that dust speck!"
I think the Wickersham brothers are a pretty good fit for the Coleman team.
(And yes, I admit I recalled the quote and names without looking them up.)
February 12, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that about a month ago, Norm gave up on getting more votes than Al.
NOW, Norm is busy trying to prove that he's a more entertaining comedian.
And Norm just keeps on gaining ground! By the time this election is decided, Al will be a confirmed sourpuss in the Senate, while Norm will be ready for SNL.
I think that Al should just go ahead and concede (the comedy, not the election).
February 12, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink