12.29.2008

Coleman Not in Giving Mood on Absentees

UPDATE (8:45 PM): The Uptake (as usual) has better and more recent info than I do.

Coleman is requesting the following:

-778 absentee ballots OPENED on the basis of recommendations from local election officials.

-544 absentee ballots LOOKED at more closely before they are opened (or not)

-67 absentee ballots OPENED that are not currently on the list from local election officials

-587 absentee ballots LOOKED at more closely before they are opened (or not) that are not currently on the list from local election officials.

Note that 778 plus 544 does not equal the total of 1,346 absentee ballots released by local election officials. Tony Trimble, Coleman recount laywer, said today they have not rejected opening any absentee ballot yet so the discrepancy accounts for absentee ballots they have not yet reviewed.
So the Coleman campaign does not want to count about 550 ballots identified by the counties as potentially being rejected improperly, but they do want to count about 650 ballots that the counties didn't flag. As the Star Tribune notes, however,
Coleman's proposed additions skew heavily toward suburban and rural counties where he did best in the election.
The Coleman campaign has apparently not made any effort to explain what differentiates the absentees they do want counted from the ones they don't.

Original post follows after the jump.

____
Stunningly, the Al Franken and Norm Coleman campaigns are having difficulty coming to a consensus on just which absentee ballots to count, in spite of having been ordered by the Minnesota Supreme Court to do so:
While the Franken campaign said Saturday it wanted to count all 1,346 absentee ballots that local officials have determined were improperly rejected, lawyers for Coleman said today they had agreed to 136 of the ballots but would release a list containing "lots, lots more" this afternoon.
We perhaps shouldn't judge the Coleman campaign too harshly until we know precisely what "lots, lots more" means. But, the passage of the Christmas holiday wouldn't seem to have softened them up any. What sort of an objective standard would result in a list (even a partial list) that contains just 136 out of 1,346 potentially wrongly rejected absentee ballots? Minnesota's reasons for rejecting absentee ballots are actually quite clear. There are undoubtedly some borderline cases -- but it's doubtful that 90 percent of the cases are borderline.

More to the point, the Coleman campaign shouldn't really be picking out individual ballots at all. Rather, they should be proposing some set of standards by which all ballots can be evaluated. They don't seem to be making any effort to do that. Certainly, the Coleman campaign has the right to promote a set of standards that they believe is relatively more favorable to its cause. But that's different than cherry-picking individual ballots -- which, in all probability, the campaign has concluded are liable to be Coleman ones.

Peering a little deeper into the Star Tribune's article, however, one understands why the Coleman campaign must be very worried about the absentees:
There were indications today that of the 1,346 absentee ballots agreed to by the Franken campaign as being improperly rejected, an estimated 60 percent were cast in Hennepin, St. Louis, Ramsey and Dakota counties. There are 329 such ballots in Hennepin County alone, and another 161 ballots in St. Louis County, according to an official close to the Senate recount.
Of the potentially wrongly rejected absentee ballots identified by county officials, 24.4 percent are in Hennepin County -- meaning Minneapolis and its whereabouts, a highly favorable area for Franken. By comparison, however, 22.8 percent of the ballots cast on Election Day were in Hennepin County. The number of absentees in Hennepin, in other words, is about what you'd expect.

On the other hand, 12.0 percent of the absentees are in St. Louis County, another highly blue area that contains Minnesota's third-largest city, Duluth. By comparison, just 4.1 percent of Election Day turnout was in St. Louis County. Why the discrepancy? Because officials in Duluth rejected 77 absentee ballots which didn't contain a date next to the voter's signature. The state does apparently instruct voters to date their signatures on the absentee ballot envelope -- but there is no statutory requirement that they do so, and the vast majority of counties processed and counted such ballots.

On Election Day, Franken got 54 percent of the vote in Duluth, Coleman got 31 percent, and other candidates got 15 percent. Applying those percentages to the 77 dateless ballots would imply that Franken picks up 42 votes, Coleman 24, and "other" 11, meaning a net gain of 18 votes for Franken. Considering that Franken's lead is unofficially listed at just 47 votes, adding another 15-20 ballots to that margin makes a fair amount of difference.

56 comments

Ander said...

Coleman knows he's fighting a difficult uphill battle, which, if this recount hadn't happened, wouldn't have occurred. As long as he has some legal right to question the ballots, though, he's not going to stop, because he would hate to lose to a person as vocal and forceful as Franken.

Then again, he could do us all a favor (taxpayers and recounters alike) and just concede, but I highly doubt that would occur.

Pragmatus said...

I have been hoping for someone or thing to put a stake in the heart of this monster. What's wrong with the Senate, on January 2, just voting to seat Franken, and then be done with it? You're never going to make the Republicans happy, because they have no interest in that state of mind as it relates to governance. They will always find something to cry about.

KQuark said...

This should be an all or nothing situation pure and simple. Any other way of counting some and not counting others will yield a result that is tainted by political maneuvering.

Freedem said...

Third? Wow

livemild said...

what a mess. while MN has done an admirable job, especially SoS Ritchie and the CB, their Supreme Court needs some work.

Freedem said...

Well fourth anyway- I am amazed at how transparent the whole thing has been. Had Florida been so transparent and thorough millions of lives would have been saved.

That said going over the board decisions one by one there are probably 40 votes that the board disagreed with most who looked at the ballot, though there does not seem to be a numerical advantage about it. I also made several decisions that looking back would have been different.

I would like to see Franken win but this baby is split down the middle more accurately than can be measured. What ever the rules of inclusion they need to be applied as broadly as possible. Cherry picking each vote here is crazy.

MNLatteLiberal said...

Nate, not sure if you a) are reading this and b)caught a related story that MPR broke about Coleman trying to muddy up the waters with 650 "extra" ballots he happened to have cherry picked from the "redder" areas of the land of 10,000 lakes.

IMHO, he is setting up for some serious and lengthy court action, provided he has mulah left over after he raped and pillaged his recount fund for his legal defense.

~ Latte

livemild said...

quick question-
what happens to coleman if he does just cherry pick? i cant see the supreme court doing much since they were the ones who dreamed up this weird answer to wrongly rejected ballots in the firwt place.

the coleman people certainly arent acting like they are afraid of the SC

STepper said...

This was caused by the MN Supreme Court's abdication of its responsibilities. It's Rodney King "Can't we all just get along?" requirement that the litigants agree on what would be counted. Funny thing is, we have courts which are supposed to step in when the parties can't agree and decide acording to the law. Not this court!

So, this turd lies squarely on the courthouse steps of a Pawlenty-oriented court. (Justice Alan Page being one of the few voices of reason on that court.)

Of course Coleman only wants votes counted that are probably for him. What a disgrace this guy is who succeeded to Paul Wellstone's seat. I'll be glad when this Cheshire Cat finally fades away and even his smile becomes a distant memory.

1sunnyday said...

This is in fact exactly the outcome I've been predicting since the moment I read the inane Minnesota Supreme Court ruling. (I've no idea why Nate thought this would play out any differently. )

Coleman has cherry picked a handful of ballots in districts favorable to him, daring Franken to block them. A move the puts Franken in a clear bind. This is clearly an attempt by Coleman to completely nullify the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. A plan that seems destined to succeed unless the MN Supreme Court becomes directly involved.

If Franken matches Coleman's move by blocking all of Coleman's approved ballots, Coleman could then argue that the issue of the wrongfully uncounted absentee ballots had been settled. And most certainly, both side would have come to an "agreement" on the ballots. An agreement forced by the ridiculous rules put in place by the MN SC, but an agreement nonetheless.

The MN SC previous ruling seemed designed to avoid mandating a solution of this issue. If Franken matches Coleman's move and blocks his opponent's ballots, it would give the court a clear excuse to close the issue forever.

Why is this a problem for Franken? Because Franken is only ahead 40 some votes, were Coleman to win a single, small concession in any of his post-certification court challenges, it could put Coleman back into the lead.

Such a turn around would probably be many orders of magnitude more difficult were all of the wrongfully rejected ballots to be counted. Most estimates suggest such a counting would give Franken a many hundred vote lead. A lead no amount of Coleman court victories would be likely to overcome.

Franken cannot (of course) allow a recount of just Coleman's cherry picked ballots, such a move would almost almost certainly result in Coleman winning the recount. Franken's only moves would seem to be:

A. A return to the MN Supreme Court to challenge Coleman's unlawful rejection of the vast majority of the fifth pile absentee ballots.

B. An in-kind rejection of Coleman's ballots, resulting in none of the wrongfully uncounted absentee ballots being counted. (Coleman is victorious in nullifying the ballots) This would result in Franken winning the recount by a mere 40 some votes, but quite possibly put the wrongly rejected absentee ballots out of reach for all time.

I suspect Franken will attempt option A, but be be told by the MN SC to "work it out yourselves". This will force Franken to adopt option B and hope none of Coleman's post-certification court challenges are successful.

Another Mike said...

@ livemild, I think the effective response to Coleman attempting to cherrypick is for Franken to withhold consent. Per the MN court, both campaigns have to agree before an absentee ballot is cast. Franken needs to withhold his consent to counting likely Coleman votes unless Coleman agrees to counting likely Franken votes. If there's a stalemate, then Franken wins until everything is thrown into court. If I were Franken, I'd rather face the wrath of the court for being unreasonable then agree to an unfavorable counting that would allow Coleman to take the lead and subsequently try to overturn it in court. Although the saying possession is 9/10ths of the law does not directly apply here, there seems to be some truth to it. As others have noted and as I predicted, this result was completely foreseeable the moment the MN court dodged making a decision on the absentee ballots.

Another Mike said...

In thinking aobut this some more, perhaps Franken should not simply reject all absentee ballots. Probably a more effective response is the same tactic Coleman is using--cherry pick and accept all absentee ballots that he believes would be favorable to him. Then he vetos Coleman's absentee ballots and preserves for later court challenge those he thinks should be counted.

Another Mike said...

@ 1sunnyday, I'm not sure the campaigns failing to reach agreement on particular ballots counts as a resolution of the issue. Why would both not be able to go to the court and challenge the failure to count any particular absentee ballot?

Gplex said...

What has happened to the fact that (it seems) the people of Minnesota have voted for Franken over Coleman? That's pretty obvious at this point, isn't it? Does he really believe there's a mandate otherwise?

green libertarian said...

Well, I was afraid something like this would happen. Coleman may very well have a point, that there are ballot envelopes that were rejected by the counties that shouldn't have been. We don't KNOW if the counties used exacting standards or not. The case is the same for Franken.

Of course, you can't cherry pick your counties/precincts/ballots that you think are going to be favorable to you, based on how that precinct voted.

We see this notion all the time of there being just 4 reasons to reject an absentee ballot, and one of those is NOT invalid witness signature, yet the SOS Election Judge's Manual CLEARLY states you have to have a witness who is registered to vote in MN, and, it's clear that MANY (how many?) AE's were rejected by Election Judges for lack of verifiable witness signature (acutally, it's a verification of registration AND the address the witness puts down on the AE, more later on that.)

This whole thing makes my head hurt.

green libertarian said...

In fact, the second most common reason that local officials rejected an AE was for lack of, or non-verification of a witness signature.

MNLatteLiberal said...

@STepper, agree completely.

@1sunnyday,
The situation is not quite as optimistic as you paint it. As MPR reported, Coleman has gone back to the RED areas, and apparently cherry picked properly rejected absentee ballots from the other four piles.

So, it does Franken little good to block just the 136 Coleman cherry picked. It is also clear there won't be, nor should there be any concessions from the Franken campaign to reward the outrageous behavior of the Coleman camp.

I see Coleman people "generously giving" another couple of hundred ballots to be counted tomorrow morning when the real fun begins, but digging its heals on the bulk of the Hennepin, St. Louis and Ramsey ballots. I suspect this thing is headed right back into the lap of the MNSC to force them to make a decision.

What I do not understand, is why the envelopes can't be handled with a double blindfold, Karnac-like, so that neither campaign sees the county of origin, just the spreadsheet with 4-5 vital pieces of info on each ballot envelope? Seems to make a lot more sense.

~ Latte

Mark said...

MNLatteLiberal, I agree. This looks like a tough situation, and I expect that Franken is going to have to stoop to tit-for-tatting Coleman's cherry-picking or he's going to have to go back to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

It's clear by now that Minnesota voted to replace Senator Coleman with the DFLer, Al Franken. If Coleman succeeds in subverting the democratic process in this recount, it will be a sad day for the country.

Mark Grebner said...

What does the following mean? (From today's Star Tribune)

"A state Supreme Court order calls for the issue to be resolved by this coming weekend, and a series of regional meetings are scheduled to begin Tuesday for local election officials to sift through those rejected absentee ballots over which there is a lingering dispute."

Was the reporter just making it up, or is there actually some sort of resolution process in place?

green libertarian said...

OK, bear with me... Nate indicates above that the rules are clear for accepting/rejecting and absentee ballot envelope, and references MN Statute 203B.12 which says this:

The election judges shall mark the return envelope "Accepted" and initial or sign the return envelope below the word "Accepted" if the election judges or a majority of them are satisfied that:

(1) the voter's name and address on the return envelope are the same as the information provided on the absentee ballot application;

(2) the voter's signature on the return envelope is the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for ballots and the certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions for casting an absentee ballot, except that if a person other than the voter applied for the absentee ballot under applicable Minnesota Rules, the signature is not required to match;

(3) the voter is registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has included a properly completed voter registration application in the return envelope; and

(4) the voter has not already voted at that election, either in person or by absentee ballot.

There is no other reason for rejecting an absentee ballot. In particular, failure to place the ballot within the security envelope before placing it in the outer white envelope is not a reason to reject an absentee ballot.

The return envelope from accepted ballots must be preserved and returned to the county auditor.


So, there's the case for the oft-pined idea of there being 4 and only 4 reasons to reject an AE. Doesn't say anything about the witness issue, yet we KNOW that hundreds of AE's were rejected for "witness" problems.

(FYI, I think the witness requirement is useless and unnecessary, however, it IS in MN law, as I will show.)

/waves to latteliberal
-taconite12

WShawn said...

I'm still a little fuzzy on this whole situation, so please forgive what might be an ignorant question, but isn't Franken now leading by 47 votes? Wouldn't it be in his best interest to have all the vote counting stopped at this point? If Coleman wants to cherry pick which rejected ballots get counted can't Franken simply say, "Okay, let's not count any more ballots anywhere?" Just block everything.

kjvd00 said...

Of course anything to disenfranchise voters will taken up by the candidate that is the current underdog. Yes, Coleman is grasping at straws, but you saw similar tactics from Franken when he appeared to be behind. Overall, this is all just posturing though. As the old saying goes--nothing to see here....

Demockracy's Annual Essay Contest

green libertarian said...

From the MN Secretary of State 2008 Election Judge Manual:


Next examine the return envelope after determining that the voter is eligible. The back of the return envelope must be signed by the voter and (except for UOCAVA voters) witnessed by any one of the following:
1. anyone registered to vote in Minnesota; Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State
2. a notary public;
3. an election official such as a county auditor, city clerk, or designee; or
4. any public official having authority to administer an oath such as a judge (note: if the witness is an official, they must give their title).
(M.S. 203B.07, subd. 2; 203B.12, subd. 2)
If the outer return envelope has been properly completed, mark the accepted box on the envelope and have two election judges initial it.


So, it appears that CLEARLY there are than four reasons to reject an AE. You have to have a witness, with the requirements above.

Now here's how it works, if the witness is in county, the election judge looks up the witness's name on the voter rolls, and verify's that the address given by the witness matches the address the witness put down on the AE.

If the witness is out of county, apparently there's a state database accessible via computer, and the address match is done thru that system. Failing that, a call is made to elections authority in the county of the witness for a verbal confirmation of registration and witness address match.

Note that no actual signature match of the witness is performed, just an address match from what they put down on the AE.

More to come...downing ibuprofen...

Another Mike said...

@ willshawn, you're right that Franken is ahead and if no more ballots were counted, he'd win. But, Coleman has other legal challenges to make, such as duplicates allegedly being counted twice and missing ballots being counted. Everything we know about the absentee ballots suggests they're more likely to help Franken than Coleman. So, if Franken totally blocks everything, it could take away a potential gain for Franken that might make the difference between winning and losing if Coleman wins some of his other expected legal challenges. I'm also not sure how viable an option blocking all absentee ballots is after Franken went to great lengths to get them included.

green libertarian said...

Correction: Clearly there are MORE than four reasons for rejecting an AE.

The fifth one is having a valid witness.

Oh, and here's the link to the SOS Election Judge Manual:

http://tinyurl.com/8dd4tt

con't...

Juris said...

With respect to the 600+ ballots that local officials did not single out that the Coleman campaign wants to have reviewed but the Franken team had not identified in that way, this should have been anticipated on the basis of comments by the Coleman campaign last week. They realized that they had to expand the pool of counted ballots to have any chance.

Obviousy, the Franken campaign could do the same thing and add to the pool too -- if they have time -- or they can stand on principle and just reject all of those "extras" that the Coleman group wants to look at, while not adding any extras of their own.

But surely what the Coleman team has done is check the their canvassing records for all of the people they want to add. Has Franken been outfoxed, or has his team done the same with a group of ballots that the local officials did not isngle out?

NB! Voters do not register by party in Minnesota. So the only way for the candidates to know with any degree of certainty how individual voters are likely to have voted for Senator is by using their own party's canvassing records.

wv: grefe (good grefe!)

green libertarian said...

In the part of the SOS Election Judge manual, the part about REJECTING an AE, the water is muddied again, to wit:

12.4 REJECTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS

You must reject an absentee ballot when:
1. the application and return envelope signatures do not match (note the exception for military and
overseas voters below);
2. the voter has already voted;
3. the voter is not registered and has not enclosed a properly completed voter registration application;
or
4. the voter has died.


So, here's another iteration of that meme "only four clear reasons to reject an Absentee Ballot Envelope".

Again, no mention of a witness requirement, yet we know that hundreds of AE's were rejected for lack of witness/witness problem.

IF, some AE's were rejected for lack of witness info, and some were not, there's your equal protection argument all over again.

We also know that SOME counties notified early absentee voters of problems with their AEs, allowing such voter to come in/mail in a cure for such, and SOME counties did nothing, just rejected the AE out of hand. Disparate treatment.

IAC, it's obvious that some AE's were treated differently than other AE's. And that it's not at all clear what the reasons for rejecting an AE is.

MNLatteLiberal said...

hey, taconite12,
been stuck on the Strib site for some time - it keeps eating my post without posting it. and, as if that weren't enough, there is a piece of something stuck under my "e" key, and half the time it won't register. Lots of pc problems, in other words :).

I am curious to see how the AB issue resolves itself tomorrow. I wonder if Tremble can be arrested tomorrow for obstructing justice as they try to low ball the ballots.

~ Latte

green libertarian said...

By the way, certainly, as they're not idiots, Franken's team as done the same as Coleman, and examined piles 1-4 in the counties that say those are validly rejected, and has a bunch that they want to bring into the count, as Coleman's goons have done.

But Franken hasn't played that card yet.

Opus 132 said...

Just had a horrible thought:

As the agreed upon AE's get examined,won't the same old objections be raised as to the voters' intentions (e.g. overvotes,undevotes,stray marks,etc.)?

Ugh.

Juris said...

@green libertarian: I hope you're right@

Juris said...

Opus 132: for sure it will happen, there will be challenges. But the Canvassing Board does the counting, I think, and will adjudicate challenges as they go along.

green libertarian said...

-Latte, sorry to hear about the PC problems. As a once computer tech, I have to ask, have you shut it off and restarted?
j/k
:)

I've not been able to keep up on the troll infested STrib blogs... plus it's confusing as the STrib changes the headlines, or they don't match in various places...

Altho I haven't seen his evidence, Coleman's digging into the various counties purportedly validly rejected piles doesn't surprise me, and as I said, I'm sure Franken's people have done the same thing, but aren't playing that card, yet.

green libertarian said...

Oh, and yeah, about 20% of the time when I try to post on the Strib's site, it crashes Firefox. Very frustrating.

Michael (mbw) said...

As others have noted, Coleman's behavior was exactly as we predicted, not following the rosy picture Nate and others hoped for. If Franken already had a big enough led to withstand any challenges re possible double-counting, there would be no problem, but he may not.


Coleman is obviously planning to try to game the meetings tomorrow, and no there is nothing about those meetings to stop him.

Here's the question: was the MNSC deliberately malicious in setting this up for Coleman, or were they just morons? I guess we'll soon find out.

polls_apart said...

If Franken were to block all pre-certification counting of the absentee ballots, this would force the SoS to certify the count with him in the lead by 47 votes. Franken could then contest any result favoring Coleman in the contest phase by by contesting the result based upon not counting the absentee ballots. Such a contest would land directly in the MNSC's lap, which could be problematic. Any such contest, however, could be accompanied by the history of Coleman's maneuvers during the attempt to count the absentee ballots in the pre-certification phase. Franken could be more successful in getting the absentee ballots equitably counted during the contest phase than during the current, pre-certification phase.

juvanya said...

When they certify Franken as the winner, he should ask Coleman to concede to save the state more money. ;)

MNLatteLiberal said...

@green_libertarian,
a can of worms here, to be sure. I will spare you my hard drive head breaking off and scouring the sectors story. Suffice it to say, that Vista shuts off and reboots itself whenever it feels like :(.



We should have a pool here on whether MN SC will have to intervene yet again prior to the certification. At the same time, imho, Coleman is running out of obfuscating tactics prior to the certification. And obfuscation is all he has left.

~ Latte

loner said...

Franken will be sworn in when the Senate convenes on 1/6.

Chris said...

@ Mark Grebner asked about the Star Tribune's reference to "a series of regional meetings ... scheduled to begin Tuesday for local election officials to sift through those rejected absentee ballots over which there is a lingering dispute."

A full listing for these dozen or so meetings is at http://tinyurl.com/9nthxz.

magster said...

Harry Reid should announce that the Senate won't recognize Coleman as the winner unless he prevails on an inclusive count of the absentees. Let Norm know that the Senate won't ratify his cherry picking.

Mark Grebner said...

Thanks for the schedule, but what I meant to ask was: what is the agenda for these bodies exactly? Will they just sit and implore the two sides to "work something out, please?" Or is there some sort of adjudicatory function? Are they going to take up each ballot to whose inclusion there has been an objection, and then rule on the ballot's validity?

I'm not from Minnesota, so please forgive my failing to understand the local culture. But at some point, doesn't some neutral entity have to make a decision about whose votes to count? Is this search for cooperation between diametrically opposed parties a recurrent theme in Minnesota elections? If it is, how does anything ever end?

Joseph said...

I'm with Mark.

I have no concept as to what these meetings are all about? It all seems rather pointless to me if the campaign jostling is what really has to be resolved.

What is the actual purpose of these meetings? Do they even have any real validity or authority if BOTH campaigns aren't on board?

green libertarian said...

Could very well be a circus tomorrow at those meetings, didn't need to be.

I wonder if Tremble can be arrested tomorrow for obstructing justice as they try to low ball the ballots.

~ Latte


One has to have to hope and dreams.

-taconite12

Nathaniel Lichtin said...

@ Mark Grebner
So during the meetings the two campaigns will try to work out whcih ballots should be counted. If the can't agree then the ballot isn't counted and a law suit or election contest can be filed to try and get the ballot counted after the result has been certified.
The MNSC relied on case law (the case has been refered to as Anderson)and interpreted it to mean that a clear error, the term used in Anderson, only occurs when both parties agree that an error has occured.
I know the requirement that both campaigns agree seems really stupid, but it is what happens when cpurts only go as far as neccesary to resolve the problem and then later cases are decided based on that limited decision. The court could have said clearly the law was not followed and the counties should go back and make sure that the law was properly complied with. It would have gone beyond the previous case law, but is clearly an acceptable decision. The Coleman campaign would then be able to challenge the inclusion in an election contest.

Mark Grebner said...

Thanks - that actually clears things up, if it's possible to use the word "clear" with respect to such a muddled mess. I'm an attorney and I work in elections in Michigan, and I hope we'd never do anything like this.

I think there's only one feasible course for Franken, which is to object to ALL ballots that have been identified as incorrectly rejected, and then sue or offer to join a suit to have them ALL counted. I'm sure there's some reason under Minnesota law that won't work either.

Beyond following precedent, a court really needs to pay attention to the situation into which it's being drawn. Even if they only resolve the specific dispute that's before them - which of course is a principal maxim - it wouldn't have hurt anything to sketch out the process envisioned if the parties fail to agree.

Again, I'm a stranger to Minnesota law and procedure, but it seems clear to me that when this is all over, there won't be a stack of perfectly validly cast absentee ballots which remain uncounted because the courts couldn't figure out how to cut through their own red tape. For one thing, such a result would suggest that an election official can improperly reject ballots without any effective forum for review of that action. If Gore v. Bush meant anything - which it didn't - that would seem proscribed. One way or another, the ballots are eventually going to be reviewed and counted.

Mainer said...

Here's clarification on a number of issues (via Minnesota Public Broadcasting) on a few things:
1. Coleman can't add additional absentee ballots.
2. The local officials are finalizing the list of wrongly rejected absentee ballots.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/12/29/recount_update/

" Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said, under the procedure agreed to by both campaigns and approved by the Minnesota Supreme Court, any ballots beyond those identified by local officials could be considered only if both campaigns agreed to include them by yesterday afternoon.

Ritchie said because that didn't happen, only those roughly 1,350 rejected absentees currently on the table can be the subject of discussion as to whether they should be sent to his office, opened and added to the recount tally. Richie said there are 12 meetings scheduled around the state on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

"At those meetings the representatives of both campaigns and the local election officials will be finalizing the list of the wrongly-rejected absentee ballots that will be forwarded to our office here in St. Paul by Friday," Richie said.

Under the process, Ritchie's office must count the wrongly-rejected absentees by Sunday. He said both campaigns will then have a chance early next week to challenge any ballot decisions his office makes before the State Canvassing Board.

"I'm guessing it will take both Monday and Tuesday to get through all of the challenges and all of the little details that still remain," Richie said. "But if we have to go past January sixth we're prepared to do that but I also believe we are near the end of this phase of the process."

polls_apart said...

According to the original decision of the MNSC, both sides had to agree as to procedure for counting the absentee ballots. So it was clear that Coleman would be unable to add more rejected absentee ballots to be counted, absent assent from Franken. Now, the question will be one of reduction, i.e., how much cherry-picking of the 1350 wrongly rejected absentee ballots both sides will engage in. I agree that Franken should take an "all-or-nothing" approach, since he currently leads. If Coleman's maneuvering results in "nothing" being counted, then the contest phase (post-certification) is the right time to count any absentee ballots. If events go in that direction, the courts should be willing to adjudicate the counting of absentee ballots during the contest phase, if necessary.

ABowers said...

The Minnesota Board and SOS met this morning and made it official. The recount with the challenges awarded has Franken with a 50 vote lead. YEAH!!
Now it is up to counting of absentees.

tmess2 said...

In part, what appears to be going on is that Minnesota statutes and case law allows some of the issues which would otherwise belong in the post-certification election contest to be moved forward into the recount.

While the Court could have left it up to the local canvassing board to correct any errors, it opted instead to use a statute authorizing it to correct errors. By issuing its order, the Court got around local canvassing board being able to ignore a "request" to reconsider absentee ballots but created a different problem -- giving both campaigns a veto over the absentee ballots.

From the reports, it seems like the meetings around the states are part of the procedure agreed to by the counties and the campaigns. In theory, any campaign objecting to consideration of an absentee ballot will have to publicly explain their position. I guess the hope was that the bad pr from being unreasonable would force them to use a uniform and defensible standard. (I think everyone forgot that it will be six years until the next election and thus bad pr means nothing.)

If things break down completely, the parties could theoretically go back to the Minnesota Supremes and ask for a modification of the order (e.g. appoint a special master to resolve any disputes or authorize the canvassing board to resolve disputes).

MDCO said...

Utterly mystifying.
I get that the need for recounts is rare. and that the technical rules for what gets counted and what not are usually irrelevant.

But I also understand that the MN rules/laws are more precise and thorough than most other states'.

Someone, somewhere should be drafting the complete rules so that all states can adopt something at least coherent and complete. And I'm glad this time it's not FL nor OH and not the Presidential race.

egapre said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

rita said...

~「朵語‧,最一件事,就。好,你西

YoYo said...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇


外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,