Thanks for sharing this JGG.....This story just continues to get more and more partisan. I understood the three judge panel court discounting the testimony of the poll worker that witnessed ballots being counted twice. This woman went directly to the Minnesota Republican Party, who failed to share the information with the Democrats and Franken's camp in particular, the continuous partisanship, even by the court, is just outrageous!!
I have a hard time believing that Franken can be an effective Senator for Minnesotans after all that has transpired. I believe the only way to resolve this matter is for a special election between Coleman and Franken. The results now are just too convoluted. On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:16 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > and in 2008 in Minnesota they are not... The way Democratic counties > count their absentee votes is laxer the in Republican precincts. And > that difference is the difference in Franken lead... So all together > now, do we want transparent election that are fair, or do we seek our > guy to win if possible??? After all, that is Chicago's style of > politics now in rage... > > > > http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023022.php > > >>> Take, for example, the requirement that the signature on an absentee > ballot must be witnessed by a registered voter. In some counties, > registration lists are carefully scrutinized and if the witness's name does > not appear, the absentee ballot is not counted. Other counties make no > effort to check this requirement and count hundreds or thousands of > technically illegal ballots. Another example is the voter's signature: some > counties check carefully to make sure that the signature on the absentee > ballot looks like the one on file, while others will accept virtually > anything as a signature. > > It turns out, not surprisingly, that the counties that are careful > about applying election laws are Republican-leading counties, while > the lax ones--Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis--are heavily Democratic. > What this means, in practice, is that thousands of votes are counted > in Democratic counties that would not be counted if the same voter > lived in a Republican county. Coleman observed that we hadn't realized > it until now, but every Republican who runs in a state-wide race > starts with a deficit of several thousand votes for this reason. > > Coleman has asked the judges to open and count ballots that are in > substantial compliance with Minnesota's statute and have exactly the > same status as many votes that have already been counted. The court, > however, has shown an inclination to apply the election law rigorously > and exclude all ballots that are not in full technical compliance with > the statute. Thus a deep irony arises: if a uniform standard of strict > compliance with the absentee ballot statute is applied, Coleman wins. > If a looser standard of substantial compliance with the statute is > uniformly applied, Coleman also wins. The only way Coleman loses is if > a strict standard is applied in Republican counties and a lax standard > is applied in Democratic counties. Unfortunately, that is exactly what > has happened so far. > > The trial court has established standards for counting ballots under > which thousands of ballots now ruled improper were counted on election > day. There is no way to identify them and un-count them. (An absentee > ballot has two envelopes; the outer envelope has the voter's name on > it, the inner one doesn't. If the ballot is approved, it is opened and > the inner, secret ballot is fed through a machine with the other > ballots.) The logical implication is that we can never determine who > actually received more properly-cast votes for Minnesota's Senate > seat, the task with which the trial court is charged. > > I was skeptical when the idea of a second election was first raised, > but the more I learn about the facts, the more reasonable that > alternative sounds. If it really is impossible to determine which > candidate received more properly-cast votes, a new election would seem > to be the fairest alternative. It may, however, take Senate action to > bring about that result. (Coleman's supporters are concerned that if > Franken comes out ahead in the current process, Harry Reid will seat > him, while if Coleman comes out ahead, Reid will order a new > election.) > > An important policy consideration supports this result: as the system > currently operates, a county's failure to follow the law is rewarded, > not punished. A Democratic-leaning county like Hennepin has every > incentive to loosen the rules, not check on witnesses' registrations, > etc., so as to count the maximum number of Democratic votes. If the > court ratifies such lax conduct in the current proceeding, any county > that scrupulously applies state law will perceive that it is merely > selling its own citizens short. This is hardly to be encouraged. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
