Tuesday Night Round-Up

by: Senate Guru

Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 23:22 PM EST

Monay Tidbits

by: Senate Guru

Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 18:32 PM EST

End of Weekend Rundown

by: Senate Guru

Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 22:26 PM EST

MN-Sen Update: The Franken Wins Edition - Updated

by: Senate Guru

Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 23:11 PM EST

That's because Al Franken - to use a sports term, sorry - pummeled Coleman today, when the previously rejected absentee ballots were counted, 481-305, enough to lift his overall lead to 225 votes.

That's right.  The improperly rejected absentee ballots that are going to be counted have been counted.  And Franken's lead has gone from a post-Canvassing Board review lead of 49 up to 225.  So what is left?

The tally leaves only the formal declaration of the vote totals left to complete. The five-person state canvassing board is set to meet Monday to review the findings and direct Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to certify the results.

So, if the Canvassing Board directs the Minnesota Secretary of State to certify the results showing Franken in the lead, does that mean he can join other Senators-elect for the swearing in on Tuesday?  Not necessarily:

By law, Minnesota can't certify a winner until seven days after the state canvassing board accepts the official election results. Virtually anyone in the state can file a lawsuit in those seven days, and a presumptive winner can't get an official election certificate while an election contest is pending in court.

Norm Coleman's top election lawyer, Fritz Knaak, is either ignorant or dishonest enough to have suggested that there is no precedent for provisionally seating a Senator pending certification of his or her victory, but there is such precedent, and it's recent:

In 1997, Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, was seated "provisionally" in a Republican-controlled Senate while her election was under contest.

Nevertheless, John Cornyn made it clear that Republicans will block any attempt to seat Franken.  (Take note Democrats in the Senate, House, and White House: Republican members of Congress, by and large, have no desire to work with you to address America's challenges.  They will politically posture, spin, obstruct, and blindly oppose for the next two years.  Get used to it.)  This leads SSP's DavidNYC to ask a very good question:

Will Harry Reid fight as hard to seat Al Franken as he's fighting not to seat Roland Burris?

It seems like the Coleman camp was as certain as anybody of their impending defeat as they were already preparing court challenges before the counting was finished (emphasis added by me):

Fritz Knaak, an attorney for Republican Norm Coleman, said that it is "virtually certain" that the result is heading for a court challenge.

Another Coleman attorney, Matt Haapoja, was actually drafting what appeared to be the paperwork for a court challenge -- and another potential recount -- as he sat in the State Office Building waiting for state elections officials to finish processing the final ballots on Saturday.

"We are prepared to go forward and take whatever legal action is necessary to remedy this artificial lead," Knaak said at a press conference after the recount results were announced.

So the counting appears finished, pending Norm Coleman's cavalcade of frivolous lawsuits.  (Republicans for tort reform, take note!)  Meanwhile, as of noon eastern time today, Minnesota has only one Senator.  Until Minnesota's second Senator is sworn in, Minnesota will continue to have only one Senator.  In a nutshell, Coleman's frivolous lawsuits will hurt Minnesotans' representation and constituent service in Washington.  However, the possibility somehow exists that Coleman may retain full voting rights as a Senator, despite the fact that his term has now expired and he has not been re-elected, insane as that may sound:

Since he has not been certified a winner in the race, Coleman may have to give up his privileges as a senator, including his desk on the floor, his personal office and his right to vote on legislation, according to Democratic aides familiar with the rules. ...

It is possible, however, that all of Coleman's privileges may remain intact should the two parties reach an accommodation, and aides signaled that talks were occurring on the matter through Friday.

"We are still reviewing the situation," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Norm Coleman should respect the conclusions of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board."

Um, simply put: NO WAY!  Coleman's term of office has ended.  He doesn't get to vote as a Senator anymore.  There's no "accommodation" that should be allowed.  There's nothing to talk about here.  I agree with Jed L's summation regarding the possible seating of Coleman:

If it comes pass, it will be a WTF moment if there ever was one.

So, Republicans can file frivolous lawsuits all they want; but, the counting is done, and Al Franken has a 225 vote lead.  Our winner, Al Franken, should enjoy a shiny, new six-year term as a U.S. Senator.  And, what are runner-up Norm Coleman's parting gifts?  Well, there is the ongoing federal investigation into his alleged corruption.  We also have for the Colemans a Blo & Go and some lovely dental work.  And, finally, as a tribute to Norm Coleman's political legacy, we have the best opinion column of 2009 so far, in its entirety:

Coleman's twists and turns enough to leave one dizzy
By Marshall Helmberger

Norm Coleman just continues to embarrass himself. It wasn't enough that he ran one of the ugliest campaigns for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota history. He now seems intent on one of the worst displays of serial flip-flopping in the annals of election recounting.

It's almost hard to keep up with Sen. Coleman's frequent about-faces. His perspective on the rights of voters to have their votes count changes almost daily, depending on the latest tally from the state's canvassing board.

Just last month, when he still led in the vote count, Coleman sought the intervention of the state's Supreme Court to block any counting of wrongly-rejected absentee ballots. Now, trailing by 50 votes, Coleman is seeking not only to count the wrongly-rejected absentee ballots, but to add in hundreds more that county officials ruled were rejected for perfectly valid reasons.

Franken campaign officials, on the other hand, have been consistent from Day One, insisting that every valid vote be counted. That was their position on Nov. 4, and that's their position today. And it's hard to argue with principled consistency, which is no doubt one reason that Norm Coleman has lost every single argument, whether in court or before the state's canvassing board.

Coleman's people didn't help their cause by suggesting before the Supreme Court that Minnesota's recount was akin to the 2000 debacle in Florida. Such a comparison was entirely inaccurate, since Florida's recount was halted midstream by a US Supreme Court that ruled that completing the effort could cause "irreparable harm" to one George W. Bush. Irreparable harm, as in eight years in Crawford, rather than eight years in the White House.

Unlike Florida's recount, which was mired in politics and occasional thuggery, Minnesota's recount has been an entirely open process with remarkable unanimity from the multi-partisan members of the state's canvassing board. A live audio feed from the Secretary of State's office allowed any Minnesotan to watch as the canvassing board reviewed the ballots. Each ballot was projected on a screen so the public could see exactly what the canvassers were seeing as they made their rulings. You couldn't ask for a more open process and Minnesotans have a right to be proud of the example state election officials have set.

But this above-board process hasn't stopped the Coleman campaign from all but announcing a legal challenge to the recount should it reveal that Al Franken is, in fact, the winner. Never mind that Coleman publicly chastised Franken for even allowing the automatic recount to take place. Had the unofficial election night count showed Coleman behind, the senator said he'd "step back." Now, with the far more accurate recount totals suggesting Coleman will likely be declared the loser, suddenly he's threatening a court challenge of the entire election.

The Coleman campaign's legal argument will apparently center on the suggestion that approximately 130 ballots may have been counted twice. Duplicates of ballots are made occasionally, if the original ballot won't pass through a vote scanning machine. Coleman's campaign alleges that some of these duplicates may have been recounted along with the originals and he wanted local election officials to recount their ballots again, but only in 25 precincts, mostly in pro-Franken Minneapolis. Given that this was the exact same cherry-picking that Republicans accused Al Gore of committing in Florida, you might think the Coleman camp would have been a bit embarrassed to make such an argument, but there is apparently no shame amongst this gang. Nor is there apparently a need for evidence, since the voter tallies in the selected precincts reportedly matched those from election night. If duplicate ballots had been included in the recount, the number of votes and voters would presumably no longer match. The fact that they did suggests the Coleman camp may be grasping at straws.

In either case, as the Franken attorneys correctly argued, if the court were going to order a search for possible double-counted votes, it would need to order it statewide, which would have, in effect, required the recount to start all over again. Not surprisingly, it was another Coleman argument shot down in the courts.

But that won't prevent Coleman from recycling it in a formal election challenge, which could delay a final decision on the winner for weeks, and possibly for months.

In other words, the guy who wanted to spare the people of Minnesota the trouble and expense of a recount now appears poised to deny us full representation in the U.S. Senate, possibly for months, and add far more expense to the state's bill for the whole affair.

Pathetic, Norm. Just pathetic.

UPDATE: A key numerical point about Al Franken's 225 vote lead is that, even if Norm Coleman wins his evidence-free challenges, Franken would still lead:

First, there's Coleman's claim that 25 selected precincts double-counted a bunch of absentee votes for Franken, netting Franken about 110 votes. During the recount, the state Supreme Court ruled that Coleman could only raise this issue after the recount concluded and an apparent winner was determined. But if courts agree with him on that and took those votes away from Franken, Coleman would still lose. Then there's the canvassing board's decision to restore to Franken a net total of 46 votes that went missing from a single precinct during the recount. Coleman's campaign has indicated that they plan to contest that decision, but winning on it would still have him behind.

So does Coleman even have a one-in-a-million prayer left?  Doesn't look likely:

What options does he have left? Coleman's only hope would be to win on his campaign's latest efforts to restart this phase of the recount and force the counting of about 650 rejected absentee ballot envelopes from red precincts, which the local officials say were tossed properly. An affidavit from a Hennepin County election official shows the Coleman campaign hasn't even supplied reasons to look at these ballots, and election officials in multiple counties, including Ramsey county, Pipestone County and others all say they've been taking the time to review the Coleman list, and they stand by their decisions.

It may sincerely be time for Coleman to take his own advice and "step back" so that Minnesota can begin its "healing process" and seat two U.S. Senators as soon as possible.

Closure on Senate Question Marks

by: Senate Guru

Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 18:49 PM EST

New Year's Day Rundown

by: Senate Guru

Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 18:38 PM EST

MN-Sen: New Year's Eve Update

by: Senate Guru

Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 13:27 PM EST

Both campaigns should recognize that the judgments of local election officials carry much weight in the court of public opinion, and likely will in any court of law as well.

This warning would serve the Coleman camp well as it tries not only to accept only a small portion of the 1,346 ballots that county election officials identified as improperly rejected, but they also try to have counted hundreds of ballots identified as properly rejected, those ballots coming from mostly Republican areas.  A significant development in this area occurred as it was revealed, in Coleman-style comical fashion, the standard by which the Coleman camp is disagreeing with the determination of county election officials:

Election judge is dumbfounded her ballot was rejected

DULUTH - Shirley Graham was astonished to learn that a lawyer from Norm Coleman's campaign on Tuesday blocked her absentee ballot from being added to the U.S. Senate recount.

"I'm an election judge," said Graham, of Duluth. "I expected to be the last person whose ballot wouldn't be counted."

Her sealed ballot was among 60 from St. Louis County that were blocked by representatives of Coleman and Al Franken during the first day of a statewide review of absentee ballots that may have been wrongly rejected in last month's election. Under a state Supreme Court ruling, local election officials and the two campaigns must all agree that a ballot was wrongly rejected for it to be sent along to St. Paul for inclusion in the recount.

Coleman's camp, which rejected 59 of the 60 ballots set aside Tuesday in St. Louis County, objected to Graham's ballot on the grounds that the date next to her signature did not match the date next to the signature of her witness, Jack Armstrong.

So, not only do we see Norm Coleman rejecting the ballot of an election judge who would likely know how to fill out an absentee ballot properly (and who, coincidentally, voted for Coleman, the story reveals), but we learn that the standard by which Coleman is pushing to reject ballots is that the date next to the voter's signature did not match the date of the witness' signature.  Is that a proper reason for rejecting a ballot?  Let's review the four legitimate reasons for rejecting an absentee ballot:

1. The ballot was rejected because the voter's name and address on the return envelope are not the same as the information provided on the absentee ballot application.

2. The voter's signature on the return envelope is not the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for the ballot and the signature is required under applicable Minnesota law, or the certificate has not been completed as prescribed in the directions for casting an absentee ballot.

3. The voter was not registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has not included a properly completed voter registration application.  Elections personnel shall use available voter rosters to determine whether the voter was registered.

4. The voter had already voted at the election, either in person or by absentee ballot.  Elections personnel shall use available voter rosters to determine whether the voter had already voted.

Yeah, I don't see anything about the dates of the signatures either.  Maybe that's why county election officials deemed these ballots improperly rejected.  Coleman's getting into very tenuous territory with election officials.  How many strikes does Coleman have with the Canvassing Board, election judges, and local election officials?

1) Coleman challenged far more ballots than Franken and withdrew far fewer challenges - and, all the while, his challenges were far more flimsy - which slowed the process for the Canvassing Board.

2) Coleman pushed this "duplicate ballot" nonsense without any hard evidence to speak of, only conjecture, and election judges would not rule in his favor without that pesky little thing called evidence.

3) Now, Coleman is questioning the judgment of the county election officials and comically trying to re-insert into the process hundreds of properly rejected ballots from mostly Republican leaning areas.  (Remember that the Star Tribune reminded us that the county election officials "carry much weight in the court of public opinion, and likely will in any court of law.")

All of this suggests that Coleman is, for all intents and purposes, toast.  Perhaps that is why even conservatives see Coleman's chances as close to nil:

Coleman Running Out of Options in Minn. Race

The counting of improperly rejected absentee ballots will probably increase Democratic challenger Al Franken's lead over incumbent GOP Sen. Norm Coleman according to a new analysis of voting trends, effectively relegating Coleman to filing lawsuits considered unlikely to reverse the outcome of the election.

In case you didn't notice, that analysis was courtesy of the far-right-wing outlet Newsmax.  When Coleman loses them, he's in real trouble.  Coleman might not have the right-wing zealots, but at least he has Big Bad John Cornyn, who put out the following statement:

Al Franken is falsely declaring victory based on an artificial lead created on the back of the double counting of ballots. His campaign's actions in the last several days on the issues of rejected absentee ballots are creating additional chaos and disorder in the Minnesota recount. Those actions, coupled with the recent comments by Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who suggests seating someone even if there is an election contest, are unprecedented. Minnesotans will not accept a recount in which some votes are counted twice, and I expect the Senate would have a problem seating a candidate who has not duly won an election."

Problem is, Cornyn's ridiculous statement is full of lies:

First, the Franken campaign has not declared victory, instead only expressing a very high degree of confidence that they will win. The statement also blames Franken for "creating additional chaos and disorder" on the issue of rejected absentee ballots, when by all appearances it's the Coleman campaign that is offering a cherry-picked list of ballots they want counted.

And finally, Cornyn alleges that it is "unprecedented" to seat someone while an election is still being disputed. As recently as 2007, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) was seated without prejudice by the majority-Democratic House while his election was being contested, and in 1997 the majority-Republican Senate provisionally seated Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) after her GOP opponent alleged irregularities in her very narrow win.

This doesn't bode well for either Coleman's chances or Cornyn's tenure ahead as Chair of the NRSC.  Coleman, though, has been given one last chance to go out with at least the slightest shred of dignity, but it looks like Coleman is going to opt for the "take my ball and go home" attitude:

A scheduled meeting between local officials and campaign representatives to review 35 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots broke down Tuesday morning, according to Elections Supervisor Rachel Smith, after Coleman's camp refused to proceed - unless additional ballots not selected by county staff for counting were included.

So where does that leave the entirety of the Minnesota Senate race?  It is my understanding that the Secretary of State's office will certify a winner next week.  If Coleman's foot-dragging on the improperly rejected absentee ballots leads to another appearance before a judge, if/when Coleman tries to prevent certification, this will be the crux of the campaigns' arguments:

Franken: We agree 100% with the county election officials.  They identified 1,346 improperly rejected absentee ballots across the state.  This is all that remains before a final vote tally can be deemed complete, and we agree to count them all, as per the county election officials' decision.

Coleman: We disagree largely with the determination of the county election officials.  However, we will agree to count some of the absentee ballots identified as improperly rejected on two conditions: 1) we get to choose which ones to count; and 2) we also get to add in hundreds of properly rejected ballots from Republican areas.  Oh, and we still don't have any hard evidence regarding our "duplicate ballot" conjecture, so don't even ask.

Who do you think wins that court case?

IL-Sen: Blagojevich Appoints Former AG Burris

by: Senate Guru

Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 17:33 PM EST

Here's the quick and dirty:

Monday Night Quick Hits

by: Senate Guru

Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 23:53 PM EST

MN-Sen: Norm Coleman Has Jumped the Shark

by: Senate Guru

Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 14:28 PM EST

According to the Star Tribune, the Coleman campaign has indicated it is in sharp disagreement with county officials on which ballots should be counted.  The counties have identified about 1,350 absentee ballots that were improperly rejected.  This weekend the Franken campaign said it was OK with counting all of them.  Today the Coleman campaign indicated it only wants to count 136 of them and wants to count several hundred more that the counties have not identified as being rejected in error.

Norm Coleman has not only handpicked the 136 ballots out of 1,346 identified that he wants to count, ostensibly wanting to trash the 1,210 other ballots, but he also wants to "count several hundred more that the counties have not identified as being rejected in error!"  Norm, "Have it your way" is the slogan for Burger King, not democracy.  At this point, I would imagine that the Coleman camp's credibility with the Canvassing Board and local election officials is wearing ridiculously thin.

Want another hilarious sign that Republicans have given up on Norm Coleman's chances?  An attentive reader points out that the website that the National Republican Senatorial Committee put up to blog on the recount, MinnesotaRecount.com, has not posted an entry since November 30th, about a month ago!  Surely, there's been some news in the recount since then.  Maybe the NRSC has just had a hard time spinning in December.  Perhaps the website should change its slogan from "Keeping a watchful eye on Minnesota's Senate recount" to "Turning a blind eye to Minnesota's Senate recount."

UPDATE: Shocker:

Coleman's proposed additions skew heavily toward suburban and rural counties where he did best in the election.

Yeah, I think the Coleman camp's credibility with the Canvassing Board is rapidly shrinking to nil.

NY-Sen: Caroline Kennedy Has Jumped the Shark

by: Senate Guru

Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 16:15 PM EST

NC: It just seems like the only - your interest in this seat coincided with the chance to become appointed to it, which is the easy way into the seat, and so it raises questions. If you really want it -

CK: Actually, I think that actually a campaign would be an easier way, because I think it would give me a chance to explain exactly what I'm doing, why I would want to do this, and, you know, and get people to know me better and to understand exactly what my plans would be, how hard I would work ...

For context, during this portion of the interview, Confessore is trying to gauge whether Ms. Kennedy would be interested in pursuing the seat if it was via a standard campaign for an open seat, rather than an appointment process.  And Ms. Kennedy's response is that a campaign would be easier because the appointment process doesn't give her adequate opportunity to explain what she's doing and why she's pursuing the seat or for New Yorkers to better get to know her and her plans.

Ms. Kennedy has news cameras following her all over the place, reporters and pundits clamoring for her to be more specific as to why she's pursuing the seat and what her plans and positions on the issues would be as Senator.  And that is what she says.

Ms. Kennedy, you have the combined media of New York and Washington D.C. hanging on whatever words you're willing to put out there.  Your "competition" for the appointment largely (if not entirely) consists of elected officials in New York, be they statewide officials, city Mayors, or members of Congress.  They have spent years establishing their positions, goals, and vision for New York.  You have largely avoided public life, so you get the heightened scrutiny.

Please, take advantage of the opportunity to lay out as clearly as you can, perhaps in a single, high-profile, wide-ranging speech, who you are, why you want the seat, where you stand on key issues, and what you see as the top challenges New York, America, and our planet at large face in 2009 and beyond and how we can use our government to address those challenges.  If you do this, you may gain lots of supporters or you may lose some potential public support.  However, if you don't do this, you will only gain critics who question why you aren't answering these questions.

End of Weekend Round-Up

by: Senate Guru

Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:07 AM EST