The MN Supreme Court just issued an appalling ruling (3-2) which will likely result in the improperly excluded absentee ballots remaining excluded in the recount, unless a lawsuit is filed after the recount is concluded.
The opinion crazily requires the CANDIDATES to agree if an absentee ballot was improperly excluded before it can be included by the local county boards. Yeah, that'll happen!
So absentee voters ballots are dependent upon the candidates (not the local elections officials!) agreeing that they followed the rules and should be counted. Gee, I wonder if Coleman will "agree" that absentee ballots from the overwhelmingly blue (urban) counties should be counted?
Another blow against democracy by the nation's judges.
If Coleman wins the recount after this, this ruling could form the basis of a challenge not to seat him in the senate. MN may not have a second senator for a long, long time.
Posted by euzoius at December 18, 2008 06:09 PMCapj, I was wondering where you went off to. I hear it's down to 2 votes in Coleman's favor...TWO votes!
Enjoy your evening and Merry Christmas!
Posted by peter at December 18, 2008 08:19 PMeuzoius got it wrong... the MN Supreme Ct voted to require the improperly rejected absentee ballots must be counted and now all counties will have to go back and do that. This was not unexpected however interestingly 2 justices who sit on the Canvassing Board (and who are both Republican appointees) recused themselves from the decision. They both voted to require this as well at the Canvassing board so if they had participated the vote would have been 5-2. In any case this is technically a victory for Franken. I would not be so skeptical, one thing that is certain is that Minnesota is not Illinois or Florida, not only do we boast the highest voting turnout rate per capita but we also have squeaky clean and efficient voting mechanisms and the people who run them, (mostly "above average" to quote Garrison Keillor), the Secty of State and the county boards are already addressing the issue regarding the reasons for the improperly rejected ballots and the laws regarding this will be amended for the next election cycle.
Would you like some lutefisk with your latte? and it hasnt been above zero in Hallock MN for 7 days. Uff dah.
As much as I sympathize with the weather in beautiful Hallock, leftymn, and as much as one might agree with the cleanness and above averageness of MN election officials, there's just no disputing that the 3 Pawlenty justices have set up a "system" that only allows the uncounted absentee ballots to be opened if both candidates AGREE to it---and the opinion appears to require "agreement" on every single unopened ballot. Good luck with that.
So I stand by my analysis, while appreciating what you wrote.
Posted by euzoius at December 19, 2008 06:31 AM