Norm Coleman's forces filed a detailed list of all the precincts where they are claiming problems occurred with the election and recount. I will attempt to connect the detailed results (1MB) which were published and my analysis of the challenged ballots (340KB) and generate a report on those precincts for your entertainment, information, and research purposes.
I retitled this after analyzing 12 precincts where Coleman's team is asking for the counting of 39 duplicate ballots where a matching original wasn't found in the original envelope (item #3 and exhibit B).
Won't that cause double counting Former Senator Coleman?
Monday's testimony was devastating to Norm Coleman in that Ramsey County Elections Manager Joe Mansky, under cross examination from team Franken, detailed how non congruent results can occur between the (quick and dirty) election night results, the election canvas (checking the voting machine totals), and the recount (carefully counting every vote with multiple witnesses).
Even though Coleman's forces are unable to prove their claims that there were so many errors in the election and that the Election Contest Panel should give up and tell the Governor to give him an election certificate I will endeavor to inform all my friends what evidence exists publicly to support those claims.
First team Coleman added a few items to the list of precincts where he alleges double counting occurred because of duplication errors. I detailed 21 of these Sunday and will detail the others.
Anoka Coon Rapids W-1 P-4: There were 6 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. Neither team Coleman nor team Franken challenged any ballots in the precinct. The lack of challenges is evidence that both campaigns agreed to the recounted total. Nothing there.
Blue Earth Mankato W-5 P-11: There were 2 fewer ballots counted in the precinct and a no change in the margin. Coleman challenged 7 duplicate or original ballots for "identifying mark". These were all marked duplicate but since some were federal only absentee ballots which had to be originals team Coleman must have decided that the phrase "duplicate #" was an identifying mark.
Dakota Farmington P-1: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 2 votes for Franken. There was only 2 Franken challenges in the precinct and they were not related to duplication.
Dakota Hastings W-1 P-3: There were 8 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 3 votes for Franken. Coleman challenged the only ballot challenged in the precinct because the voter used a small x to vote for Franken.
Dakota Lakeville P-9: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. There was a total of 8 challenges in the precinct but none of them involved duplication.
Hennepin Bloomington W-2 P-27: There were 7 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 2 votes for Franken. Coleman challenged 2 precinct ballots and two federal only absentee ballots while Franken challenged 1 federal write in ballots and two federal only absentee ballots due to duplication errors. None of the challenged ballots were marked or initialed.
Hennepin Minneapolis W-2 P-3: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 2 votes for Franken. None of the 3 challenged ballots for the precinct involved duplication.
Hennepin Minneapolis W-5 P-4: There were no changes in the vote for the precinct. Coleman challenged 3 ballots due to no original found. Rule nine should have prevented these duplicates from being counted since there should have been at least two other federal only absentee ballots that were apparently not challenged.
As the Table Official sorts the ballots, he or she shall remove all ballots that are marked as duplicate ballots and place those duplicate ballots in a fourth pile. At the conclusion of the sorting process, the Table Official shall open the envelope of original ballots for which duplicates were made for that precinct and sort the original ballots in the same manner as they sorted all other ballots. The Table Official shall disregard this step if there is not an envelope of original ballots, in which case the duplicate ballots will be sorted.
Hennepin Robinsdale W-4: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. Coleman challenged 1 federal only absentee ballot which was not marked original as no duplicate.
Lake of the Woods 3B (Williams City): There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. Coleman challenged 1 unmarked initialed ballots which was in the original ballot envelope.
Stearns Melrose: There were no additional ballots counted in the precinct and a loss of 1 vote for Franken. Coleman challenged 1 initialed ballot which was marked as duplicate #1 as no original. Coleman won the vote because an original was produced showing the duplicate was erroneously marked for Franken.
Wadena Wadena P-3: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. Coleman withdrew the only challenge to a ballot in the precinct which was for an identifying mark.
Wadena Aldrich City: There were 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. There were no challenges in the precinct but the Canvasing Board apparently awarded the single Coleman challenge from Aldrich TWP to Franken as an Aldrich City ballot.
Wright Buffolo P-2: There were 5 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. None of the 17 challenges in the precinct involved duplication.
Wright Maple Lake TWP: There were 4 additional ballots counted in the precinct but no change in the margin. The only challenge in the District was from Coleman because of a remark stating "voter was not informed enough" on the back of the ballot where the judicial races were left blank.
Apparently force Coleman are the ones who are not informed enough.
Uncounted Duplicates: Exhibit B of the Affidavit of Matthew W. Haapoja from the Coleman legal team (linked in intro) identifies 12 Precincts where they allege ballots were not counted due to the SOS's interpretation of rule nine (blockquoted above).
This appears to be the reverse of the double counting issue where duplicates are found which do not have matching originals and the ballot duplicates were not counted in the recount for Coleman.
Anoka Spring Lake Park P-1A: There were 3 fewer ballots counted in the precinct and a loss of 3 votes for Coleman. None of the 4 challenges in the precinct involved duplication.
Dakota Burnville P-11: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 3 votes for Franken. None of the 5 challenges in the precinct involved duplication.
Dakota Farmington P-1: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 2 votes for Franken. Neither of the two Franken challenges in the precinct involved duplication.
Dakota Lakeville P-10: There was 11 less ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 7 votes for Franken. The single Franken challenge in the precinct did not involve duplication.
Hennepin Bloomington W-4 P-6: There was 1 less ballot counted in the precinct and a loss of 1 vote for Coleman. There were no challenges in the precinct.
Hennepin Brooklyn Park W-E P-8: There was no change in the number of ballots counted in the precinct but there was a gain of 2 votes for Franken. None of the 4 challenges in the precinct involved duplication.
Hennepin Edina P-11: There was 4 fewer ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. The available images show 2 originals marked original #1 and original #2 with Franken votes, 2 duplicates marked duplicate #1 and duplicate #2 with Franken votes, and 2 duplicates marked duplicate #1 and duplicate #2 with Coleman votes (initialed by different judges than the other four). Even though all six images show challenges numbered one through six, only two Coleman challenges which were awarded to Franken by the canvasing board appear on the certified totals.
Hennepin Maple Grove P-6: There were 3 fewer ballots counted in the precinct and a loss of 3 votes for Coleman. The single Franken challenge in the precinct did not involve duplication.
Itaska Comfort: There is no Comfort precinct in Itaska County, but there is a Comfort Township in Kanabec County where there was 1 fewer ballot counted and a loss of 1 votes for Coleman. There were no challenges in that precinct.
Ramsey Roseville P-2: There was 1 less ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 2 votes for Franken. The single Coleman challenge in the precinct did not involve duplication. Franken did challenge one ballot which had been duplicated. Both the original and duplicate were produced in the single public PDF. Franken withdrew his challenge.
St. Louis Duluth P-16: There was 1 less ballots counted in the precinct and a loss of 1 vote for Coleman. Both campaigns issued a single challenge which did not involve duplication.
St. Louis Hermantown P-3: There were 3 fewer ballots counted in the precinct and a loss of 3 vote for Coleman. Colman challenged a single ballot marked original #18 which did not have any initials based on an incident report.
Apparently Coleman's team is staying mum about the fact they want duplicate ballots without matching originals counted in these 12 precincts. It seems the recount rules were followed and neither campaign issued challenges to this group of ballots with the exception of the two extra duplicates with the wrong initials that did not match the votes on the originals in Edina P-11. Does that qualify as a spanking? (Inside joke for Mrs B. and the followers of TheUptake's liveblog)
The next section of the affidavit being analyzed today deals with precincte that had more votes recorded in the final tally then the reported estimated number of voters from the official publicly available reports.
Testimony from Ramsey County's Election Manager Jim Mansky covered some reasons there are discrepancies that do not indicate malfeasance or errors in the actual vote totals.
There are 20 precincts specified by Coleman's team where he alleges problems occurred out of a total of 351 precincts which listed more total votes then the estimated number of voters.
Anoka Lexington P-1: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and no change in the vote totals. Franken challenged one Aldrich vote due to chain of custody.
Becker Callaway: There was 5 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of three votes for Franken in the reported vote totals. The single Coleman challenge was not related to chain of custody. The Canvassing Board apparently awarded 4 challenges to Franken in this precinct which should have been awarded in Callaway Township. Calloway Township did report 18 additional ballots and a loss of 14 votes for Franken. If the four wrongly allocated ballots listed above had been properly allocated there would have been 22 additional ballots reported from the precinct and a loss of 10 votes for Franken. None of the challenges in this precinct related to chain of custody issues.
Becker Shell Lake Township: There were 7 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 3 votes for Franken. None of the challenges in this precinct related to chain of custody issues.
Beltrami Turtle Lake Township: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. The single challenge came from Coleman on an absentee ballot which was not duplicated and failed to scan in the tabulator. That ballot was awarded to Franken and accounts for the discrepancy.
Dakota W. St. Paul W-1 P-2: There were 7 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 2 votes for Franken. The challenge in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues.
Hennepin Crystal W-4 P-2: There were 6 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 4 votes for Franken. There were 7 Coleman and 1 Franken challenges in this precinct were not initialed and were challenged for chain of custody.
Hennepin Golden Valley P-6: There were 22 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 8 votes for Franken. The challenge in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues.
Hennepin Maple Grove P-9: There were 3 fewer ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 2 votes for Franken. There were no challenges in this precinct.
Hennepin Rogers P-1: There were 5 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 3 votes for Franken. The challenge in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues.
Olmsted Rochester W-3 P-3: There were 9 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. The 2 challenges in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues.
Olmsted Rochester W-6 P-1: There were also 9 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. The challenge in this precinct was not related to chain of custody issues.
Ramsey Roseville P-8: There were 4 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 3 votes for Franken. Franken won one of his 2 challenges in the precinct because of an improperly duplicated ballot and none of the other challenges related to chain of custody issues.
Ramsey Maplewood P-6: This was the precinct where 168 uncounted ballots were located and counted as part of the recount increasing Franken's margin by 37 votes. Coleman's team withdrew this issue and the ECC panel dismissed the issue with prejudice.
Ramsey St. Paul W-3 P-9: This was a less publicized precinct where 18 uncounted ballots were located and counted as part of the recount increasing Franken's margin by 16 votes. Coleman's team withdrew this issue and the ECC panel dismissed the issue with prejudice.
Ramsey White Bear Township P-2: There were 30 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 2 votes for Franken. Coleman withdrew the lone identifying mark challenge.
St. Louis Duluth P-32: Coleman's team claims there are 64 votes at issue here but there was no change in the vote totals from the canvas report's numbers to the final allocation. None of the challenges in the precinct related to chain of custody issues.
St. Louis Eveleth P-6: There was no change in the number of votes cast in the precinct but Franken did gain 1 vote. There were no challenges in this precinct.
St. Louis Eveleth P-6: There was no change in the number of votes cast in the precinct but Franken did gain 1 vote. There were no challenges in this precinct.
Swift Murdock: There were 3 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. There were no challenges in this precinct.
Washington Woodbury P-3: There were 3 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 2 votes for Franken. The challenges in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues.
Wright Buffolo P-2: There were 5 additional ballots counted in the precinct and a gain of 1 vote for Franken. The challenges in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues.
The next section of the affidavit at issue deals with 7 precincts where they allege all the votes were not counted during the recount since fewer voter were recorded during the recount then were recorded in the canvassing report.
Clay Hawley Township: There were 20 fewer ballots counted in the recount than the number of estimated voters from the canvas report. Franken gained 1 vote from the recount and Coleman lost 3. The challenge in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues.
Dakota Burnville P-7: There were 14 fewer ballots counted in the recount than the number of estimated voters from the canvas report. Franken's margin increased by 3 votes. The challenge in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues.
Ramsey Roseville P-4: There were 20 fewer ballots counted in the recount than the number of estimated voters from the canvas report. Franken gained 1 vote from the recount and Coleman's vote total was unchanged. The 2 challenges in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues.
Ramsey White Bear Lake W-3 P-1: There were 11 fewer ballots counted in the recount than the number of estimated voters from the canvas report. Franken gained 1 vote from the recount and Coleman lost one vote. There were no challenges in this precinct.
Scott Prior Lake P-5: There was 1 additional ballot counted in the recount than the number of estimated voters from the canvas report. Franken's vote total was unchanged and Coleman gained 2 votes from the recount. The challenges in this precinct did not relate to chain of custody issues. The affidavit specified that two ballots were missing during the post election review (pg 491) which occurred before the canvas. The final numbers show 3 additional ballots counted during the recount than were counted in the post election review hand count.
Stearns St. Cloud W-1 P-2: There were 8 fewer ballots counted in the recount than the number of estimated voters from the canvas report. Franken lost 2 votes from the recount and Coleman lost 4 votes. There were no challenges in this precinct.
The final section of the affidavit under review points at specific irregularities identified by Coleman's forces in 11 precincts.
Anoka St. Francis P-2: There was no change in the number of votes cast in the precinct and no changes in the numbers for each candidate. None of the challenges related to the alleged irregularities. The irregularity specified was 2 ballots not counted as part of the recount without an apparent explanation.
Carlton Perch Lake Township: There was no change in the number of votes cast in the precinct while Coleman lost 1 vote. There were no initials on the single Franken inconsistent marks challenge. The irregularity specified was that there were "Ballots found with chain of custody issues".
Hennepin Bloomington W-3 P-18: The final numbers showed 1 additional ballot counted and a gain of 2 votes for Coleman. The irregularity specified that there were "2 Coleman ballots not counted today". Franken did challenge two Coleman ballots which had "spoiled" written on them. The Canvasing Board awarded both votes to Coleman unanimously.
Hennepin St. Anthony: There was no change in the number of votes cast in the precinct P-2 and P-1 recorded one less ballot. Coleman lost 1 vote in P-2 while there was no change in the numbers for P-1. None of the challenges related to the alleged irregularities. The irregularity specified that "ballots were found in the 'excess ballots' pile and counted during the recount".
Houston Caledonia P-1 and P-2: There was no change in the number of votes cast in either precinct nor was there any changes in the numbers for each candidate in either precinct. There were no challenges in either precinct. The irregularity specified was "2 ballots from P-2 were found with ballots for P-1 but were not counted in recount for P-2".
Stearns Maine Prairie Township and Le Sauk Township: There was no change in the number of votes cast in either precinct nor was there any changes in the numbers for each candidate in either precinct. There were no challenges in either precinct. The irregularity specified was that three write-ins on a ballot in one of the precincts precisely matched the write-ins on a ballot in the other using the same handwriting.
Stearns St. Cloud W-1 P-2: There were 8 fewer ballots counted in the recount than the number of estimated voters from the canvas report and Franken's margin increased by 2 votes. There were no challenges in this precinct. The irregularity specified was that "3 ballots (were) apparently removed from (the) ballots voted on election night by (the) election judge.
Stearns St. Cloud W-4 P-8: There was no change in the number of votes cast in the precinct and no changes in the numbers for each candidate. None of the challenges related to the alleged irregularities. The irregularity specified was that "2 ballots (were) apparently removed from (the) ballots voted on election night by (the) election judge.
Stearns Waite Park P-2: There was no change in the number of votes cast in the precinct but Coleman's vote total did decrease by 1 vote. None of the challenges related to the alleged irregularity. The irregularity specified was that "1 ballot (was) apparently removed from (the) ballots voted on election night by (the) election judge.
Conclusions:
Coleman's team is grasping for straws.
I hope Coleman's lawyers try to prove some of these in court (just for the entertainment value).
I hope a real journalist asks Coleman "how can he justify asking for the counting of almost 40 duplicate ballots where no original exists".
Al Franken will be the next Senator from Minnesota