Minnesota Finds 89 More Potentially-Countable Votes -- Don't Expect Big Swing
The pool of votes in Minnesota could be poised to expand by the enormous amount of...89.
This comes after a court-ordered statewide search for a type of rejected absentee ballot known as a 3-A ballot -- an absentee ballot for a non-registered voter, in which the voter mistakenly placed the registration form inside the inner secrecy envelope, rather than immediately within the outer envelope as they were supposed to.
Out of about 1,500 envelopes searched, only 89 were found with completed registration forms, and could potentially be counted by this court. Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann told TPM that the ballots represent a pretty even distribution of votes from across the state, though there are some standouts -- for example, Olmsted County had 15 of them, and Washington County had 12. Both counties' overall vote totals were heavily pro-Coleman.
It's hard to tell how this whole pool of votes will turn out -- it's possible (though not certain) that it may have a pro-Coleman geographic tilt. On the other hand, Al Franken won the absentee ballots by a decent margin, and also did very well among new voters. In either case, we're talking about only 89 ballots, drawn from throughout the state, so don't expect a big swing either way.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Why is this still happening?
I've got Coleman fatigue. Can the court be far behind?
March 9, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of a phrase one of my kids coined: "the never-ending bugger".
March 9, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is somewhat strange that the court has issued these rulings as they go, rather than wait until the end. What that tells me is that they won't be making any significant rulings at the end, they will just count these ballots, and the other 30 or so that they already included and that's it. If they were going to rule in Coleman's favor on the other things that he has asked for, it seems to me, they would have already done so. They are making these rulings as they go along.
March 9, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adding any ballots will only embolden Coleman. I mean now he can point and say "See even the recount was deemed wrong", what's to say a higher court won't find more votes were wrongly excluded.
March 9, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're so right. This just adds to the perception that the whole thing was a complete CF.
March 9, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
no. this is exactly what the entire contest process is about. and the court needn't be concerned about the MISperceptions that will be deliberately spread by the coleman camp and republicans (even if you are susceptible to helping them spread the meme).
the contest is about allowing both sides to make their cases for ballots to be counted. if the coleman camp can't make the case for enough ballots to make up for their vote deficit after the recount, then the court will declare that franken received more votes.
the burden is on coleman to prove he got more votes than franken. if he can prove that he got more votes than were included in the recount but can't prove that he got more votes than franken then he will have only proven that he came in second place. END. OF. STORY.
March 10, 2009 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If so, that's great news!
March 9, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't putting a reg form inside the envelope comprise a form of 'identifying mark'?
March 9, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the "mark" isn't on the ballot itself.
March 9, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember all the Republicans in Florida in 2000 who said that your vote shouldn't count if you are "too dumb" to follow "simple voting instructions?" I thought they were wrong then, and think these ballots should be counted in Minnesota as well, but I would hope they would be intellectually honest enough to stay consistent and argue that these Coleman voters who put their registration cards in the wrong envelope should have their ballots thrown out!
I'm waiting.... The silence (read: "hypocrisy") is deafening.
March 9, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink