Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Franken-Coleman trial: Really, no kidding, Thursday is going to be a critical day

Wake up!!!

The Election Trial from Hell is moving into a critical phase. Like the snows of Minnesota that melted away the past few days, so, too, may the massive universe of ballots slide towards and then spin down the drain of election history over the next few days.

Lines have been drawn and Judges Elizabeth Hayden, Kurt Marben and Denise Reilly will hear arguments Thursday that, some time soon after, will result in significantly streamlining this trial.

Wake up!!!

Or so it would seem.

“We are in a universe-shrinking mode,” said Al Franken’s lawyer Marc Elias, who has talked about the universe of absentee ballots the past few weeks as much as he has legal theories and the absence of a second Minnesota senator in Washington.

Both sides have their messages and it is imbedded in the legal positions they will take at 1 p.m. at a critical hearing.

The Franken message is this: There are laws in Minnesota. To vote via absentee ballot a voter must follow them. Voting via absentee ballot is a privilege. Perhaps those absentee ballots laws should even be changed. And Secretary of State Mark Ritchie even pushed for such reform today.

But in November, 2008, laws were in place, and, goldarnit, the law must be followed.

Franken, of course, is officially ahead in the recount by 225 votes and seems to have picked up another 24 Tuesday in a ruling from these same three judges.

The Norm Coleman message pushes the four-major legs of the absentee ballot law, but, then, former Sen. Coleman is trailing.

And it highlights a key legal position that some votes have been counted in some counties while others — with similarly improperly submitted ballots — have been rejected. That’s not fair or equal, Coleman’s side says.

Here’s the tally in legal briefs both sides filed late today. Tuesday the judges asked the two campaigns their opinions on whether 19 discrete and some even esoteric categories of ballots should be counted.

From signatures, to date of arrival, to the legality of witnesses, to wrong addresses…lots of little, itty-bitty things that, it seems, the law requires.

The Coleman side told the judges in their documents today that 16 of the judges 19 categories should be counted.

The Franken side said that two of the 19 categories should be counted.

It all made for some fancy rhetorical mouthwork today.

Ben Ginsberg, Coleman’s legal spokesman, calls Franken’s position on which ballots should be included now in this election contest: “The Great Franken Disenfranchise Machine…they have made yet another attempt to keep valid Minnesota voters from having their wrongly rejected absentee ballots counted. We are saddened… “

Countered Franken’s Elias: “Minnesota law is quite specific with respect to absentee voting…The law is what it is…We’ve said all along from the very beginning of this…that every lawful vote ought to count. The counties did a good job. To believe they missed this by thousands of votes is to underestimate what a good job these county officials did.”

Of course, what we think and what they say in the hallway outside of the courtroom means diddly.

It’s what Marben, Reilly and Hayden, who were appointed to their thankless jobs by Supreme Court Justice Alan Page, think.

And whether, in fact, they are going to continue to review up to 4,800 or so ballots in this trial or, as they said in a recent order, “streamline” the proceedings by narrowing the scope of the sorts of ballots they will consider.

We are not judges here at MinnPost and don’t even play ones on TV. And the three robed ones don’t hold daily news briefings like the articulate legal whizzes do to explain to us their inner most feelings.

But if there is any hint of how the judges are leaning on this it may come out of their ruling Tuesday in the so-called “Nauen 61” case.

Those are the 61 Franken-backed voters represented by Minneapolis lawyer Charles Nauen. They each wrote detailed affidavits explaining to the court why each of their votes should count. They each believed they followed the law.

Of course, the Franken side didn’t oppose the “Nauen 61.” They are Franken votes.

But neither did the Coleman side. And not one county election official from the 11 counties in which the voters voted objected to the notion of including these once-rejected absentee voters into the tally.

But Judges Reilly, Marben and Hayden only ordered 24 of the ballots to be counted. Only 23 of them clearly satisfied the judges’ increasingly narrow view that you’ve got to follow the letter of the law to have your vote counted in their courtroom. The 24th voter mistakenly placed her registration form in the secrecy envelope inside the absentee ballot package. The judges ruled that secrecy envelope can be opened to search for the registration; if it’s in there, her vote can count.

The point is this: Instead of Reilly, Marben and Hayden, perhaps these three hard-working state court judges should be named Picky, Picky and Picky.

With no outside force opposing the 61 voters, these overly cautious judges  allowed only 24 of their ballots to count. Of the 37 others, they sought more information and evidence.

Clearly, the Franken legal team is playing to the judges’ migration after 12 days of hearing testimony and hours of reading motions:  the state law with the four statutory requirements must be followed…unless it wasn’t the voter’s error, but a mistake on the part of election officials.

(Four key rules: voter’s name and address on outside envelope must match the absentee ballot application; signatures must mach, too; voter must be registered; voter didn’t vote in person.)

The Coleman side says it agrees with the basics of the law — but — and this is a big but — they claim that in different counties different ballots were treated differently, and before the State Canvasing Board, too.

They say, in fact, that in some counties categories of ballots that now face being excluded by the court have already been counted in other counties. How can you include some and keep out others?

Still, history does show that the Coleman campaign — during the recount — resisted including wrongly rejected absentee ballots. In this trial phase, with Coleman trailing, the Coleman side has said “count ‘em all.”

History also shows the Franken side has carefully always said “count all the LEGALLY cast ballots.” What’s legal remains narrow to them; it’s what’s in the law.

It allowed the Franken side to pull a big legal touche’ today in court.

During the cross examination of Dakota County elections official Kevin Boyle, Franken lawyer David Lillehaug asked Boyle to look at the Coleman for Senate Web site.

On there is a very helpful list of all the voters whose absentee ballots have been allegedly wrongly rejected.

But on the Dakota County list are 10 names that were challenged and blocked during the recount phase…by the Coleman campaign.

Lillehaug, the former U.S. Attorney, who is diligent, concise and painfully respectful, couldn’t hold back a gleeful smirk as Boyle testified to the fact that it was Coleman campaign officials who blocked the counting of those votes last year.

But now the Coleman side is claiming those voters were being disenfranchised by the Franken campaign.

It’s the sort of moment that reveals the complexity of which side was against counting votes before it was for counting votes — and vice versa.

The irony of that Web site list is that it may have been a moment for the judges’ to reveal those inner most feelings we’ve been seeking. A smile? A frown? A furrowed brow?

They watched and took notes silently, with nary a reaction. Later this week, perhaps, the judges will let us know where they stand.

There’s light at the end of the tunnel, dear readers. Something big’s about to happen.

Jay Weiner writes about off-the-field sports issues, such as sports business and sports and public policy, and about other subjects. He can be reached at jweiner [at] minnpost [dot] com.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (1)

  1. Submitted by Alyce Bowers on 02/11/2009 - 11:32 pm.

    Do you have a web site with the briefs from the lawyers?
    I carefully reviewed all 19 categories last night and came to the conclusion that only TWO categories should be counted. Both of these were cases where the voter did everything right but the election official did NOT get the absentee ballot to the precinct in time to be counted. Since this is clearly and solely an official error, these ballots should count. Otherwise an election official could wreck havoc by slow walking absentee ballots.
    12 categories were clearly a case where maybe the official goofed but definitely the voter goofed. Voting is a privilige, not a right, and the voter is responsilble for following the law. For example, a number of voters did not sign their ballot because the official placed a sticker over the signature area. OK. The official was dumb. BUT the voter MUST sign the ballot. How else can they tell if the ballot was submitted by the person entitled to the ballot? No signature – no vote.
    There were a number of categories where for one reason or another the voter was not regisitered. But the only one that counts is if the voter included a registration form in the ballot. These ballots should be weighted to determine that and counted IF there is a valid registration form inside. Otherwise – not registered – not counted. Maybe the voter is NOT qualified to register.
    And what about late ballots from overseas. Too bad. Already decided that late is too late.
    Finally there were some MAYBEs for the court to chew over – five to be exact. For example, the witness did not provide a street address. Well the law does NOT require a witness to provide a street address – only that the witness be a registered voter. So if it can be proved the witness is registered, even without a street address, then count it. And the case where the ballot was notarized but the notary did NOT stamp it with the official notary seal. Does the law imply that if the witness is a notary, then the ballot MUST be officially notarized with a seal? Or not? If not, then count.
    I think Franken is on solid ground for two reasons:One – the law is clear, specific and must be followed – no lame excuses about how I was busy and forgot to sign….
    Secondly, there are 6,000+ ballots already rejected and NOT included in Coleman’s case that were decided according to the rules. Can’t move the goal posts now that the Court has given Coleman a two minute warning.
    I am interested in seeing how much of Franken’s brief is in agreement with my thinking.
    Obsessed Reader

Leave a Reply