Coleman Spokesman Blasts "Systemic Corruption" In Voting Data
The Coleman campaign is scheduled to rest their case today in the election trial, and they're ending on a high note by pointing to what they say is the uncertainty of this whole result, due to clerical errors in the election system, even going so far as to blame "corruption" -- of computer data, that is.
This morning, state elections director Gary Poser revealed on the stand that over the past weekend he looked further into the workings of the Secretary of State's voter-registration database -- at the request of the Coleman campaign, after the Franken camp used the database to demolish a whole bunch of rejected ballots that Coleman wanted. And Poser discovered that there can be clerical errors in that very database, relating to when and how people registered, leading to arguments over whether we definitively know in a few cases whether someone was properly registered or even if their vote was counted.
During the lunch-hour press conference Coleman legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg said you can't tell the outcome of this election: "But the problem is it's tough to have faith in -- it's impossible to have faith now in what those numbers are, given the sort of systemic corruption of the Secretary of State's database."
When a reporter asked for further clarification, Ginsberg made it clear that he did not mean there was foul play. "I'm not implying any personal corruption to anybody," Ginsberg said. "Corrupted data -- I'm told it's a computer term."
The Coleman campaign has been building up to a position that the court won't be able to certify anybody as the legal winner of the most votes, and Norm himself has floated the idea of holding a new election. The clerical errors in the state's database is now just one more piece of ammo.
By the way, it is a legitimate point that an election can be so close that we can't know who really won. But Team Coleman seem to have discovered this principle at a very interesting moment, just as it's become clearer and clearer that they can't win through normal means. And this is especially interesting, considering that Ginsberg was on George W. Bush's legal team for the 2000 Florida mess.
(Ginsberg presser c/o The Uptake.)
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
"Ginsberg was on George W. Bush's legal team for the 2000 Florida mess."
Brings to mind that old phrase "the worm turns.."
March 2, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if the coleman campaign has rested, what exactly remains in the trial?
March 2, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'd like to see Franken decline to extend the trial and just rest without calling any witnesses. You're winning. Just wrap it up and take your seat (in the Senate).
March 2, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no. But I would expect Franken to offer a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Coleman has not made a prima facie case which requires defense.
Coleman may have raised doubts about the perfection of the electoral process, but he has not met the burden of proof.
Franken should not introduce more ballots to be counted, as that would only tend to further undermine the legitimacy of the election -- unless of course the court rules that it will open and count more yet uncounted ballots. In that case, Franken should submit his own cherry-picked ballots and argue strongly against Coleman's.
If the Court is as sensible as I imagine it to be, they will dismiss the case before Franken has to present counter arguments.
March 2, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Coleman case has been waged solely it seems on the premise that there is something wrong with the election system in Minnesota. They haven't provided any real evidence that there were numical or human errors made that would change the existing count to change the result, i.e., their client won the November election. So their only conclusion is "new election".
But if they win this argument and their case, the election would be run by the same officials, using the same system, using the same procedures as November-January.
If by some miracle that were allowed, the loser would then have a very good case to drag that new result back to the same court that rejected this result.
I realize Coleman's main objective here is to just keep Franken from being seated, but even their "winning" strategy has created a Catch-22 such that their client could never be seated as a legitimate Senator if they win this case.
March 2, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
numical = numerical
March 2, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny but I never had found any reason to admire Dino Rossi until all of this. Chris Gregoire won the WA governor's race in 2004 by 119 and after one (or was it two) recount(s), he conceded.
Is there even the remote possibility of a new election? How can that be in the public's best interest? time, money...
Finally, where do we stand now in terms of the number of ballots that have been allowed in? Is a summary judgement possible at this point?
March 2, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it was a little more complicated than that. Dino Rossi conceded Washington's 2004 gubernatorial race to Christine Gregoire only after:
(A) The ballots were recounted on a statewide basis not once, not twice, but THREE separate times, which showed Gregoire to be 129 votes ahead;
(B) The final results were then certified by Washington's then-Sec. of State Sam Reed, a Republican; and
(C) A GOP-appointed state magistrate in Wenatchee, Chelan County Judge John Bridges, dismissed Rossi's subsequent challenge to the 2004 recount results, and further added another four disputed votes to Gregoire's total, meaning that she won by 133 votes out of some 2.9 million ballots cast.
It was only on June 6, 2005, one day after Judge Bridges' ruling that tossed his lawsuit on its ear, that Dino Rossi finally conceded defeat.
We should also note that while the recount trial in Wenatchee was proceeding, Ms. Gregoire had been sworn in as Washington's governor, and had already served as the state's chief executive through the state legislature's 2005 regular session, which adjourned sine die on April 30 of that year.
Minnesota law makes no such provisions for a candidate like Al Franken, who remains in legal limbo, i.e., ahead by 225 votes but unable to formally declare victory, so its Senate seat remains vacant.
It would be interesting to speculate as to what the Minnesota courts and state legislature would have to do if both Norm Coleman and Franken had been contesting that state's governor's office, rather than a mere U.S. Senate seat.
March 2, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who you crapping, Ginsburg? You use a loaded term like "corruption" and then finish with "I'm told it's a computer term"? Seems like he's got another alternative to the old lawyer maxim. When both the law and the facts are against you, spin like hell.
If ever a case deserved a summary judgment, this is it.
March 2, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not: "Minnesota's election is fraught with actions that could be construed as criminal acts."
"Oh, I meant that there are some actions in this election that resemble things in what I believe is a movie, Criminal Act.
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800051845/info
March 2, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really do find it interesting that Coleman is trying to get into office by arguing the Minnesota is incapable of holding fair elections. Funny how this never troubled him when he was in office.
What are his ratings like now in Minnesota, I wonder?
March 2, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he's not saying there was any foul play or personal corruption then you'd have to figure that the honest mistakes likely broke pretty evenly all ways. If you could wave a magic wand and see all the mistakes honestly made, I bet the vote difference now would be pretty damn close to the all-knowing final tally. Why would random mistakes favor one candidate over the other?
March 2, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to be devil's advocate; random errors could be used to mask non-random fraud. Don't just disenfranchise 1000 R (or D) voters - target those 1000 and add in another 10,000 to make it routine.
What's hard to imagine is doing that on a large enough scale ahead of time to have it matter for a normal election.
Also, not all random errors would all age groups equally. Imagine random errors based on bad handwriting. Those would affect older folks & doctors more strongly, making the split not be 50 / 50.
March 2, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the system is corrupt, and this is the same system that brought Norm to power in 2002, can we assume there was no basis for him ever being Sentator? Can we have a do-over first on the 2002 election?
March 2, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
>
Actually, it's not a legitimate point, at least not in this judicial proceeding. The Coleman campaign is contesting the results of the election -- results which show Franken ahead. It's not enough for them to cast doubt on whether Franken won the election. Because they are seeking to overturn the election results, the Coleman campaign has the more difficult task of affirmatively demonstrating that Coleman won. Saying that the election is simply too close to call is an admission by the Coleman camp that it cannot meet its burden of proof.
March 2, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To TaraV re Dino Rossi: admire him if you wish, but don't say it's because he conceded because that's untrue. After the recounts, he took it to trial, where it dragged out until June of 2005. His attorneys claimed fraud and never produced any evidence of it. And when he lost, he whined "With today's decision, and because of the political makeup of the Washington State Supreme Court, which makes it almost impossible to overturn this ruling, I am ending the election contest", insulting the judges on the way out. On the good side, when he ran again in 2008, he lost so badly that his political career is pretty much over in Washington state. Let's hope the same is true for Norm by sometime next week.
March 2, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point well taken. I guess my memory was foggy on the concession part. What it really comes down to then is that MN state law does not allow for the certified winner to be seated while the appeal continues. It's an important thing for legislators everywhere to take note of.
March 2, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems that Coleman may have just gave Franken an easy gotcha. If Coleman is saying the State's computer database is/was corrupted, then there should be a lengthy papertrail by the computer propeller-heads that will confirm/deny the accusation. If there isn't an on-going or recently closed database maintenance action concerning corrupted voter files, then Coleman is blowing smoke. And if there is or was an investigation concerning database corruption, is this another instance where Coleman withheld evidence?
March 2, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, clerical errors, such as miss-keyed data is in no way shape or form the same as corrupted data. I'm sure there must be a database guru in our midst to clarify what corrupted data is.
March 2, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to understand that what Ginsberg says in the hall bears very little relation to what is said in the courtroom. It was never even hinted at in testimony that the database is "corrupt." Coleman's attys were pushing the idea that there are inaccuracies, but that was mostly their idea backed up by not much. So much not much that is wasn't even a significant part of the testimony.
Point: Ginsberg in the hall is not testimony or even a reasonable reflection of the arguments presented in court. Ginsberg in the hall is spin (probably for Faux News).
March 2, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink