Live blogging the recount: Hennepin County opposes Coleman motion

January 3rd, 2009 – 10:06 AM by D.J. Tice

As noted, Hennepin County, the state’s largest, is alone in having its reply brief posted on the Supreme Court’s website. The response, signed by DFL County Attorney Mike Freeman, is a strong argument against the Coleman campaign’s request. Here’s the heart of the argument:

The fact that campaign representatives were successful or unsuccessful in convincing local election officials to reconsider does not, however, change the fact that this Court established a uniform standard for determining which ballots could be forwarded to the Secretary of State for counting.

Those ballots must be identified by local election officials as rejected in error and the campaigns must agree with that assessment. In other words, only ballots which the local officials and the two campaigns agree were rejected in error will be passed on to the Secretary of State’s Office.

In Hennepin County, that number turned out to be 255. Whether local elections officials were convinced to add a ballot to the consideration list or elected to stand upon their initial judgment unless the campaigns both agreed to the contrary, this Court’s Order was fully complied with. Nothing local election officials did in any way suggests the extraordinary relief Petitioner seeks is warranted under this Court’s Order or in order to secure equal protection of the laws.

In addition, local election officials have finished the reviews this Court ordered. There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by an order scrapping the hard and careful work of local election officials…

A point of some contention and significance appears to be whether, in fact, the court’s order contemplated that local officials would send on to St. Paul absentee ballots that one campaign alone thought were wrongly rejected. That would describe the Coleman camp’s 650-some ballots.

Clearly, Freeman beliieves there was no such requirement. We shall see whether the court agrees.

3 Responses to "Live blogging the recount: Hennepin County opposes Coleman motion"

parthian says:

January 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am

The Court’s prior opinion dealt ONLY with the improperly rejected “pile” of absentees—it had nothing to say about re-reviewing those absentee ballots that were previously deemed properly rejected.

Thus, this is just more foot dragging and water muddying by the appalling Coleman camp.

parthian says:

January 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 am

And why aren’t these “motions” being directed to the Canvassing Board, not the Supreme Court—THEY’RE the duly appointed body overseeing the recount and THEY can interpret the Court’s prior order and rule on Coleman’s meritless “motions”.

Ritchie needs to take charge of this Coleman nonsense and have the Canvassing Board run the show here.

David E. Brown says:

January 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm

My reading of the protocol is the same as Hennepin county’s reading, but I’m puzzled that more people haven’t seemed to understand this.

This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.

We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.

Follow The Big Question on Twitter Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.