Senate recount trial: Valid ballots were rejected, expert says

  • Article by: PAT DOYLE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 30, 2009 - 11:25 PM

Ramsey County elections director's testimony bolsters Norm Coleman's argument that absentee-ballot counting was flawed.

  • 199
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jshelleyJan. 30, 09 9:23 PM

an 'expert' testifying for Coleman says that 62 ballots in ramsey county were wrongfully rejected (by Coleman's campaign btw), therefore there must be wrongfully rejected ballots in other counties as well. This thing truly is a sham.

northshore99Jan. 30, 09 9:24 PM

I'm not sure how you can argue that only certain absentee ballots should be considered in a recount, but that's how the MN Supreme Court ruled. Now the errors of their ways are coming through. In Bush v. Gore the US Supreme Court clearly ruled that ballots must be treated consistently from county to county and precinct to precinct. To argue otherwise is folly. Coleman is going to win this thing yet, and he'll do it legally. I don't think Franken's lawyer's outlandish analogies are going to do much good anymore, now that Ritchie is out of the picture.

drgipsontxJan. 30, 09 9:29 PM

. . . that Republican voters are even more incompetent than the incompetent Democratic voters Coleman's supporters have been screaming about.

Why are Coleman's supporters demanding that the votes of proven stupid Republican voters be counted after demanding that the votes of allegedly stupid Franken supporters not be counted?

northshore99Jan. 30, 09 9:36 PM

So, are you then also saying that Franken's claim to want to "count every vote" is a bunch of hooey too? It suited him well when Ritchie was running the recount, and the MN Supreme Court made a terrible ruling, but now that the law is actually going to apply fairly Franken says "no, it's time to stop counting". You can't have it both ways.

gravediggerJan. 30, 09 9:38 PM

That's the real question.

drgipsontxJan. 30, 09 9:40 PM

"I'm not sure how you can argue that only certain absentee ballots should be considered in a recount, but that's how the MN Supreme Court ruled."

The MN Supreme Court made no such ruling, which is not to say that the ruling they did make was appropriate.

"Coleman Will Likely Win"

This assumes that the uncounted absentee ballots favor Coleman and that election officials deliberately rejected absentee ballots favoring Coleman while accepting them for Franken in an unfair and biased manner (i.e., applied two different standards to the ballots for each candidate or for the ballots in counties leaning to each candidate), an assumption that is in accord with the dishonest meme being promoted by Coleman supporters, but which is not in accord with reality.

drgipsontxJan. 30, 09 9:43 PM

That's what Coleman wants, to have it both ways.

He didn't want to count these very same ballots when they were originally supposed to be counted, even when both Franken and local election officials wanted to.

Why does Coleman get to have it both ways, but not Franken?

Considering your dishonesty about the MN Supreme Court's ruling, we pretty much know that the answer is that Coleman's supporters have no limits to their hypocrisy.

northshore99Jan. 30, 09 9:48 PM

He doesn't want every vote counted. Why not? Because his lawyers are quite crafty. They out did Coleman's lawyers during the Ritchie count, but now that the law is going to prevail Franken knows that the counties where ballots were wrongly rejected will likely go against him by a large majority. I love how the democrats talk about fairness and every vote counting. I guess that only applies if their candidate is going to win. And Ritchie's decision to use election night counts in some areas is completely inconsistent with Bush v. Gore as well. Coleman will indeed win this.

memorylaneJan. 30, 09 9:48 PM

We don't need anyone else except Norm Coleman for another 6, 12, 18, 24 years or longer in the Senate. Norm doesn't need to look for another job. His permanent job will be a GOP Senator for Minnesota.

saulreedJan. 30, 09 9:49 PM

Franken asks during the recount for some 1300 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots to be included in the count. At the time, Coleman (who is ahead in the recount) seeks to block ALL ~1300 from being counted. So the court decides in December that it should be left to the parties to agree on which of the ballots, if any, to count. Coleman and Franken agree to this, and the both proceed to throw out a few hundred ballots. And now Coleman wants to cry foul because there are improperly rejected ballots that weren't counted? They weren't counted because he didn't want them counted, a position which he took repeatedly before he wound up behind in the count! How can the court not just throw coleman out on his ear over this?


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters