Skip to Content

DFL says GOP ‘reconciliation’ petition is all about delaying recount

The GOP’s filing with the Minnesota Supreme Court is an “11th hour ... hail Mary” and a sign that the Republicans are “grasping at straws,” Ken Martin, who is directing DFL candidate Mark Dayton’s recount effort, told a news conference this afternoon.

Martin reiterated that Dayton, who is leading the governor’s election by 8,755 votes after a canvass and retabulation in all 87 counties, believes there should be a complete and automatic recount.

But Martin called “just plain wrong” and “un-Minnesotan” any GOP effort to delay the recount, which is set to begin on Nov. 29. The State Canvassing Board is set to meet next Tuesday.

That delay possibility was introduced earlier in the day when the Republicans and gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer filed a petition with the Minnesota Supreme Court alleging that there were precincts in which “reconciliations” were not completed; that is, that more votes may have been counted than people who signed in to vote.

But Joe Mansky — the elections director in Ramsey County, one county mentioned in the GOP complaint — told MinnPost that all of his county’s precincts conducted reconciliations as required.

Said Martin of the GOP: “They’re trying to delay this recount from occurring ... The facts speak for themselves ... The Republicans haven’t been able to refute the facts,” he said, meaning earlier allegations of jammed voting machines or a misreporting of votes in Hennepin County. All of those previous assertions have gone unproven, he said.

He called Dayton’s current lead “a mountain” for Emmer to climb, and historically speaking, it is.

Martin said a response from Dayton’s legal team, led by Minneapolis lawyer Charlie Nauen, is expected quickly, perhaps as soon as Thursday.

Comments (1)

I think it's about not counting votes. My question is this:

Does discarding a vote without any reasonable basis to conclude that it was in any way invalidly cast violate the individual who cast that vote his rights under equal protection or due process?