Skip to main content

View Diary: MN Sen: Cataloging the known universe. (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You may be right, but I got (9+ / 0-)

    the distinct impression from listening to the presser with Elias, reading the order and other articles (NOT the Stribs) that the Court would only look at the ballots that Coleman and Franken introduced and those they could prove, with evidence, should be included (not just those whose given reason for rejection were wrong).

    Please note that I am not saying your wrong, or arguing with you, but if they were going to look at all 11,000 and make their own judgment,  they wouldn't be scheduling any more testimony, but just setting up the evaluation times.

    I'm curious why you think that they will appoint inspectors to look at all 11,000.

    •  Many issues are still open. (6+ / 0-)

      My second chart and the section which follows it (incomplete BTW) deals with the issues that are still open and another round of court requests for opinions plus an order on those

      •  Thanks for the insight! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tomtech, tecampbell, blueinmn
      •  Universal - Expanding or Shrinking? (4+ / 0-)

        Every action the court has taken so far has been to reduce the number of ballots that can be considered for counting.  Except when they ordered the counting of a small, separate pool from a separate case - 24 of 61.
        So I would be gobsmacked if the court suddenly reverses course and says - OK, lets review, for the 3RD time, all the rejected ballots because something might turn up. Lutefisking expediton.

        ONE judge said ONE time that they were going to count every vote where it was not voter error.  I think this was taken to mean that the court might go with a more liberal view of the law. WRONG!
        Since then every ruling has been strictly by the book.  "Absentee voting is a privilege, not a right...Legislature prefers in person voting...concern about fraud outweighs voter error."
        The judges went out of their way to claim the election was something for Minnesotans to be PROUD of. And to smack down Coleman for trying to drag in precedents from other states - i.e. Florida.

        To be fair to the voters, the only categories that should get another look are: 1.  Absentee ballots for unregistered voters who might have put a card in their secret envelope.  2. Ballots thrown out because of date mismatch when a date is not even required by law.  (How come Coleman never introduced any of these at trial?  Wrong counties or did I miss it.?)

        Many thanks for all you time and work.  Good job.

    •  inclined to agree (8+ / 0-)

      The panel has already said that there would be no "inspectors." Specifically, the inspection of things other than ballots is not provided for under the statute.

      The court will consider any ballot that the contestant or contestee attempt to prove was legally cast, and will open and count only those ballots where the burden of proof is met. The court has already basically committed to the proposition that equal protection is not a concern. The court will apply the law to the ballots offered by the candidates, but because this is an adversarial trial, the parties have the obligation to establish that judicial action is warranted.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site