You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Coleman will quickly agree to have her ballot count, now that they know the ballot will count for Coleman. That's the biggest problem, these aren't REALLY secret ballots. More like semi-secret.
She didn't vote for Norm. All of Minnesota loves Norm. And, Norm loves us also.
OK, somebody remind me where date of witness and voter on an AE falls under the "4 valid reasons" to reject an AE.
The only choice is to love Norman. Do you think everyone should love Norman, even now though that he appears unlovable my more than half of us?
She has just IDed who she voted for, so they better not count the ballot. It would make a mockery of the process to effectively open the ballot and then allow the campaign to reverse their decision after knowing that it is a vote for their candidate.
The process is already a mockery now that the campaigns have anything whatsoever with cherry picking who gets to vote and who doesn't.
It was all going so well before the supreme court had to go and ruin it.
Both educators and made stupid mistakes in following instructions like that? No wonder we have so many illiterate PS graduates.
That indicates he witnessed her signature on a different day than the day she signed it ... which is CERTAINLY grounds to through it out. Otherwise, why even require a date.
I sure am. Why are we lost in such minutiae? This recount is like trying to measure ant toenails with a yard stick. There is ample precedence for throwing it all out and calling a special election to determine the true will of the electorate.
Reason #2 as provided in Minn. Stat. Â§ 203B.12 , subd. 3 (the statute that gives the famous "four reasons") states that a requirement for accepting an absentee ballot is that "the certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions for casting an absentee ballot." The "certificate" is the eligibility certificate, which appears on the back of the return envelope, and which contains a statement to be signed by a witness (see Minn. Stat. Â§ 203B.07). Note that the statute requires the following of directions--in other words, although the statute itself doesn't say that the dates have to match, or even that there need to be dates, if the directions on the certificate say that the witness has to date the ballot and give the same date as the voter, it would seem that failure to do so would be a valid reason for rejecting the ballot under the statute.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks