Flashback: Coleman Said To Spare State Cost Of Recount -- But Is Now Angling For Multi-Million Dollar Election
But take a look at this number: Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has told Time that a new election, for which Coleman is increasingly angling, would cost $3.5-5 million -- and the state is already trying to fix a multi-billion dollar budget deficit. "It's pure fantasy, pure baloney," said Ritchie.
Also consider that at the time Coleman was saying the state had to be spared the expense of a recount, Ritchie estimated that it would cost nearly $90,000. Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann just told TPM that the recount proper ultimately came in above estimates, at $120,000. This puts us in the low single-digits as a percentage of the cost of a new election.
Also, the state has to pay more after the recount proper, as a result of Coleman's lawsuit to overturn Franken's margin. In the time time since Coleman brought the election contest, the Secretary of State's office has put in another $55,000. And Gelbmann is sure that local election officials throughout the state and the courts have cumulatively had to put in far more than the total $175,000 that his own office has paid during the two periods.
Still, this doesn't sound like much compared to that price tag on a new election.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
It's been pretty obvious for some time that he doesn't care how much this costs, as long as it goes his way. His the 'recount cost too much" but now he's for a re-do is just another reversal.
BTW, how many reversals has the Coleman camp done? It seems like they are arguing for something they were previously against all the time. We ought to have a cool chart or something! ;)
March 10, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Norm was one of the GOP's main attack dogs in 2004 calling Kerry a flip-flopper. The gall cries to heaven. The man has zero shame.
March 10, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norm Coleman being hypocritical? Never... How could you imply that he desires anything more than to see justice done? For shame!
In all fairness to the slime ball though, this is fairly typical behavior for a politician. Not that that makes it right, but it's not unusual by any stretch of the imagination.
March 10, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman doesn't care about the cost, number or frequency of recounts, court challenges or new elections. All he cares about is getting that seat back and all the republican party cares about is keeping Franken out of that seat. Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.
March 10, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has Mr Coleman made any explanation as to how a second election would be any better than the first? Is he not going to allow write-ins? Is he not going to use human election workers? How are grey areas going to be eliminated in this fantasy he is operating with?
March 10, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
He expects to win by a greater margin I guess.
Of course a re-vote would open up a whole new host of lawsuits. It's really impractical.
All this talk about a re-vote is basically Coleman admitting he's going to lose this case and lose his appeal. What would happen if he ended up winning this case - "Remember all that talk about a re-vote? I was just kidding around".
March 10, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes one wonder what sort of pernicious playing cards the Minnesota R's might be contemplating playing.
And lest we forget, there's a big heap of Texas cash money floating Coleman's boat these days. Any revote could be unquestionably questionable. With a little industrious hacking and packing, one might EXPECT an attempt to steal this one.
I bet Norm's thought more than once, "Where's Mike Connell when you need him?"
March 10, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on.
March 10, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
$5M is actually a lot lower than I thought it would cost. Hell, I'd expect the GOP to offer to split the cost with the Dems, and then offer to pay for the whole thing.
March 10, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The recount was estimated to only cost $90,00, but ended up a little over $120,000. So I suspect if they're saying $5 million max, it's a sure bet it will cost between 7 to 8 million easily.
March 10, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is for me the last straw when it comes to elections in the US. What is the point of having an election and a recount if the entire process is going to end up in front of a bunch of legal specialists ? This is just as bad as the 2000 election in Florida. I have no use for judges in this context. It reminds me of the way that Bill Clinton was put in an impossible position after republicans got the ditzy judge to ask Bill if he'd stopped beating his wife. I'm beginning to believe that the joke line: what's a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea ? needs to be changed.
March 10, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you want the State Canvassing Board to be the final arbiter of a free and fair election, that's your call. But that's not the procedure as currently established. As for myself, I don't find it strange or even remarkable that parties in a dispute might go to a court to resolve their differences, provided that the court uses agreed-upon procedures and small-d democratic principles to make their decisions. At this point, I see that the courts are being more than fair to Norm and his points, but I trust that the courts will make the right decision in the end, unlike what happened in 2000.
March 10, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is nothing like Florida. There is clear statutory authority for everything that has gone on. A close election, followed by a mandatory recount, and now this election challenge. The only thing that is wrong here is the fact that Norm is a sleazeball, and the statutes could probably be written so as to keep the challenge more limited in scope.
But it is all organized, and it is done pursuant to law. If there were no specific laws about how to do recounts or handle legal challenges to elections, there would be chaos.
March 10, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Per the Constitution, they don't have any business meddling with elections, but the repugs sure seem to need their services a lot here lately. I think it may have something to do with the larger number of repug life-time, appointed justices over the years that they expect to favor their Party when they bring issues before the bench - their ace-in-the-hole.
March 10, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goopers are like Al Davis of the Raiders...Just win baby. Ethics? Legality? That's for chumps...
March 10, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey, where'd that come from? why take a shot at the Raiders out of the blue? yeah, Davis is an anachonism at this point, but still
March 10, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old Smilin' Norm does a mean pivot, doncha think?
And is this some vestige of the IOIYAR era?
Imagine if any of us had called for a revote in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004...
"Why, that would cost MILLIONS!" said the Republican...
March 10, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOP - Party of Hypocrisy. You can take it to the bank.
Thanks to the Greedy Old Plutocrats, it's about the ONLY thing left to take to the bank.
March 10, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Coleman is a shady butt smoocher and I'm glad he will most likely lose but I'm getting aggravated that Franken and the senate dems are mousy quiet about calling out the GOP thugs and take a turn at shaming and deriding them. The 2008 omnibus bill is 1 vote short of passage for crying out loud. I blame Reid. He is not a capable majority leader. He and Pelosi don't even try to engage the GOP thugs as the GOP wages a propoganda campaign aimed at hurting Democrats. I just don't get it. Do they think that such behavior is beneath them or something? If I were the Speaker or Majority Leader, I'd have a rotating team of backbenchers with their own staff to agitate the producers of the talking heads to make certain that for every GOP thug on air, there is a Dem to challenge their propoganda right there on the spot and to enforce message dicsipline.
March 10, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe everyone on the Democratic side is bending over backwards to minimize any possible (ludicrous though they may be) grounds for appeal by Coleman. A lot of the election board rulings seem to be made with this in mind.
March 10, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute, isn't this whole discussion moot? I thought there can't be a re-vote because there's no law in Minnesota that authorizes it. Has the state legislature even been approached about creating such a law?
March 10, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think that it is moot. The Court can only decide who got more votes. That's it. I suppose the larger point is just showing what a sleazeball hypocrite Norm is.
March 10, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
IndyEllen -- right on. Minnesota Law does not and never has contemplated any sort of re-vote. We determine winners by very carefully counting votes, and in the case of a true tie, we flip a coin. And yes, the Legislature is in session, and is looking at some refinements of election law and proceedure, but no -- no one is putting in a bill for do-over elections in close cases.
Yes, it is taking a long time, but doing an election contest and recount in a totally fair and transparent manner takes time. Coleman's case in chief is in and done in the contest phase, and Franken is in the middle of his case. You can watch it on streaming video at "The UpTake" -- and you should watch a little at any rate just as a witness to what "fair and transparent" really means. It is slow and boaring actually -- not a hokey snake-oil show at the County Fair in the manner of Florida 2000.
Right now C-Span has up the speech by Secretary of State Mark Richie, broadcast over the weekend to the Council of State Legislators -- and I would really recommend those interested in Minnesota Election Law, and this recount in particular, find it before C-Span takes it down, and listen carefully.
Keeping an informal count of likely countable ballots being introduced in the Court Proceeding -- I believe if and when they count these ballots, Franken's lead will grow to between 450 and 500 votes.
March 10, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Sara. Nice to hear from someone who's on top of this.
I've occasionally looked at TheUptake.org but could handle just so much of Coleman's lawyers.
March 10, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Place stake over heart. Secure in place with left hand. Raise hammer with right hand. Pound stake into and through heart until stake reappears out back.
Please make me not have to hear any more about this soon.
March 10, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am Vlad Coleman....I love to count! Ah Ah Ah Ah Ah
March 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole discussion is academic. There is no statute in Minnesota law to allow for a re-vote. And good luck on changing that law so there can be a re-vote with the Democrats in charge of congress and Franken in the lead. Coleman can whine and Pawlenty can cajole but there isn't going to be a re-vote.
March 10, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand all the talk about a re-vote, when the statute calls for a coin toss if an absolute tie should ever occur. Wouldn't a coin toss be the more likely outcome if a court were to call it a statistical tie?
March 10, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so MN has an 11-figure (tens of billions) deficit. A revote would cost 7-figures. At most, the recount is costing 6-figures.
Powers of ten being what they are, that means that a revote would be a rounding error in the state budget. (And there isn't even a word for how insignificant the cost of the recount is.) And anyway, Senate seats are important. $500 million wouldn't be too much to spend to get it right, IF the need had arisen.
Of course, all of this grandly misses the point, which is that five cents would be too much to spend on a revote that had no basis in state law, no need due to judicial or state misconduct, and no intent other than to prolong the time Minnesota spends without its Senate representation.
Al's been keeping quiet lately, but if this revote idea gets any traction at all, I hope he brings all the professional scorn he can muster to paint Coleman as the brattiest tantrum-throwing toddler never to have the benefit of a Midwestern upbringing.
March 10, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, it's other people's money so what's the problem? Norm's got his ambitions.
To quote Lord Farquar:
In response to "People will die if you start that war"
"That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
March 10, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was delighted to see this:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/al-franken-meets-with-senate-dems-2009-03-10.html
It begins:
March 10, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So go ahead and have a re-vote. At this point, anything less than a 10-point win for Franken would be a shock. Wouldn't he rather have the mandate than be known as a "court-appointed" senator?
March 10, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He would not be a "court appointed senator!" The court is looking at all the disputed ballots and determining who got the most votes. That is not the same as appointing a senator.
Now, we DID have a court-appointed President. And that one had many many fewer votes than the one who got cheated out of the Presidency. That is why is was an appointment; the decision had nothing to do with determining which candidate got the largets number of votes; Electoral OR Popular.
March 10, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Norm have to pay taxes on all the money that the repub machine is giving him for his legal bills?
Does Franken get to DEDUCT his legal bills, since he was declared the winner and shouldn't have to be in court anyway?
March 10, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink