The Big Question » Blog Archive » A big day in the recount

A big day in the recount

January 5th, 2009 – 11:29 AM by Kevin Duchschere

Lots of days have been called significant during Minnesota’s long U.S. Senate recount, but today rates the billing.

This afternoon, the state Canvassing Board will sit down with only one major task on their agenda: certifying the results, which now show Al Franken 225 votes ahead of Norm Coleman.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that Franken gets to claim the crown, although it’s certain he’s mightily tempted and a lot of Democrats in D.C. would like to see him fly out and join them when Congress convenes tomorrow.

He crossed one hurdle just now. The state Supreme Court this morning rejected Coleman’s petition to count not just the 933 wrongly rejected absentee ballots that were tallied Saturday, but the 650 absentee ballots that the campaign said also were wrongly rejected and therefore should have been included.

That leaves Coleman with the option provided by state law that nearly everyone expects him to exercise if and when the results are certified: file a suit contesting the election.

If Coleman goes to court, the final certification of the election by the governor and secretary of state — which would officially make Franken the winner — would be delayed until the matter is settled.

Voices are being raised suggesting that the election has been stolen right under our eyes. In a scathing editorial today, the Wall Street Journal says that Franken may be the “illegitimate victor” of a contest steered by “the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board.”

Having watched the board work for a few weeks, I doubt that Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and other members of the board would agree with that characterization.

Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer and John Cornyn are already jawing in Washington over the possibility of Franken’s moving into the Senate. Schumer says that Franken won, while Cornyn is threatening a filibuster until the legal process is over. The election that won’t end, it seems, just won’t end.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 5th, 2009 at 11:29 am and is filed under Main. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

9 Responses to "A big day in the recount"

Dora says:

January 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

That WSJ editorial is loaded with factual errors. Of course they weren’t interested in facts they just wanted to throw some red meat out to the rw base.

parthian says:

January 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

“voices [by consrvative extremists] are being raised….”

Geez, Kevin, can you see what the problem is with this post?

YOU’RE one of the most informed people in the country on the facts and process of the MN recount, does what the loons of the WSJ editorial page are “raising” make the slightest factual sense to you? Why can’t YOU point out the gross factual errors of the WSJ nuts?

And you can only reference the WSJ criticism? Not any “voices” praising the recount? What’s the StarTrib editorial board say? Aren’t you permitted to say what you or the StarTrib team think?

Now we don’t even get “He said/She said” journalism, we get “Wingnut Loons Say” journalism. This is ridiculous.

parthian says:

January 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

And BTW, the simple reason that “the election that won’t end, won’t end” is because the loser of the about-to-be-certified recount won’t concede as a responsible elected official (who has no actual legal claims) would do.

Hollow Norm, where are your “concerns” for the good of the state now—or was that just hypocritical, manipulative piety you were mouthing on the day after the election? (Rhetorical question….)

Les says:

January 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Hypcritical, manipulative piety”

AKA, “count every vote.”

SgtPendleton says:

January 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

No that’s not “count every vote”, Les. It’s count the votes we give you.

parthian says:

January 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

Yeah, Les, it was Franken that objected to counting the additional 400 improperly rejected absentee ballots identified by the counties and only agreed to open 930 or so…..wait a minute….um…er…oops, guess that was Norm, too!

Should every rejected absentee ballot in the state be counted, Les, even those that the counties have identified a statutory reason for rejecting—i,e. voters who didn’t follow the rules? And I thought you were recently crowing how “easy” those rules are to follow?

Quite a nice little (unprincipled) game you’re playing, isn’t it? Spreading misinformation and lies—-typical wingnut.

parthian says:

January 5th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Interesting how wingnuts are now crazed to drop all the rules on submitting absentee ballots, and count anything submitted. Even when those rules were put in place to make sure fraudulent votes weren’t cast.

Looks like their endless “voter fraud” concerns just seem to melt away when their “team” may lose. Funny how that works…..

In short, just more Repub hypocrisy—or, as they would say, “hypocracy”.

Les says:

January 6th, 2009 at 10:33 am

Get your head out..

Franken refused to even look at the additional ballots to determine if they should have been rejected UNDER THE RULES HE FORCED..

Yes, it’s easy to vote, and having to determine what someone who cant follow directions “intent” was was Frankens doing, So yes, HE’s the hypocrit for then refusing to even consider additional ballots.

parthian says:

January 6th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

The counties had already looked at the ballots Coleman wanted to re-examine and had determined a statutory reason for why they rejected them—their determination has nothing to do with Franken, he hasn’t argued that absentees which were rejected for statutory reasons should be re-examined, that’s your Repub boy’s doing.

That’s hardly a hypocritical position, I’m starting to see that you don’t understand what that word means.

The “intent of the voter” is the legal rule applied in ALL recounts, all over the country; that rule has nothing to do with Franken, either. Of course you’re ignorant of that.

And the four statutory reasons for rejecting an absentee ballot are found in the MN statutes, as was clearly stated by the supreme court—Franken didn’t (and can’t) “force” the language of statutes, duh.

But you’ll say anything because you are an intellectually dishonest sophist, like most conservative white males. It’s clear that you are being intentionally obtuse on this, as on so many things that your brain happens upon, so there’s not much point in further “discussion”.

Please leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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.

Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.