2008 is about to come to a close, but the bitter contest between Al Franken and Norm Coleman is nowhere near completion.
Hundreds of absentee ballots are left to be counted, and there is no agreement between the campaigns as to how the tally should proceed. And national politicians are becoming increasingly involved in the race, adding a whole other layer of vitriol in an already tense environment.
At the very least, the canvassing board completed one important part of the recount yesterday. Both campaigns had complained about a number of confusing rulings and an uncertain final count, so the board met to finalize the count of the challenged ballots it went through two weeks ago. 6 extra votes were allocated to Al Franken and 2 extra votes were allocated to Norm Coleman.
In other words: Al Franken’s lead now stands at 49 votes.
The only issue that remains to be resolved is that of the improperly rejected absentee ballots. As I have stated before, Coleman would have no more (non legal) paths remaining if Franken’s camp had not insisted on these ballots being tallied and had not convinced the canvassing board to instruct counties to isolate improperly rejected absentees.
In a confusing decision two weeks ago, the State Supreme Court ruled that both parties and county officials have to agree on exactly which absentee ballots to count (the ballots themselves are in closed envelopes so the campaigns cannot see who the voter has voted for); the ballots on which everyone agrees will then be sent to the state election board to be opened and counted.
This mechanism is unsurprisingly causing chaos. After all, Coleman’s and Franken’s camps have no reason to agree on anything.
County officials have identified 1,346 absentee ballots as having been improperly rejected. An analysis by the Star Tribune suggests that Franken will gain more if all those ballots are counted as more ballots come from precincts won by Al Franken. Thus:
- The Franken campaign wants to count as many of these 1,346 ballots as possible.
- The Coleman campaign is
- refusing to agree to many of these ballots being counted, and
- insisting that a new batch of 650 absentee ballots be included; these ballots primarily come from Coleman precincts, have not been identified by county officials (only by the GOP) and the Franken camp is unsurprisingly laughing off the suggestion that they be counted.
In Anoka County, yesterday’s meeting was particularly contentious and no consensus was reached on any ballot. Hennepin County’s process is also likely to be chaotic. The Star Tribune does note that the process is unfolding more smoothly in some smaller counties, however. In Beltrami County, for instance, all parties agreed to forward seven of the eight absentee ballots identified by county officials; in Sherburne County, 15 of 18 ballots have been forwarded (the Tribune adds that both campaigns were responsible for 3 ballots being thrown out in Sherburne).
As if all of these proceedings were not chaotic enough, national politicians are now getting involved around the question of whether Al Franken should be seated if he is ahead after all absentee ballots are counted but before litigation is resolved.
Here is the basic issue: In Minnesota, state law dictates that a canvassing board’s certifying the results is not a final certification if the election lands in court within a week! In other words, if Franken retains his lead after these 1,346 absentee ballots are processed (something that looks more likely than not) and Coleman sues over the issue of missing ballots and double-counted ballots, the Democrat would not be officially certified as the winner.
Yet, Minnesota’s other Senator Amy Klobuchar said yesterday that the Senate should “consider seating that person [certified by the canvassing board] pending litigation.” In other words, Klobuchar wants the Senate to seat a Senator as early as next week.
Republicans were predictably outraged by this suggestion, and new NRSC Chairman John Cornyn issued a harsh rebuke, accusing both Franken and Klobuchar of “creating chaos:”
“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.”
With Minnesota’s recount and Roland Burris’s apointment, the first few days of the 111th Congress could prove highly entertaining.
The Franken/Coleman election would be a mess in any circumstance. It’s obvious that the electorate of Minnesota was pretty much evenly divided between the two candidates. However, I don’t want to lump this race with the Burris/Blago debacle. The issues are separate and should be dealt with in a separate manner.
First off, the Franken/Coleman winner should not be allowed to be seated until the process is over. While I want Franken to win, I don’t believe that either man can claim (at this time) that they are the rightful winner of this seat. There are over 1,300 absentee ballots that first need to be addressed. Both camps need to lay off the rhetoric, but of course, both camps are part of this due process! It made no since to me to have both camps involved with coming up with a way to settle on how these absentee ballots should be counted.
Regarding the Burris appointment, Blago really screwed the Democrats (and, at the same time, used Burris for his own personal agenda). The appearance of this appointment is horrible: did Blago appoint this fine man to help his case with the impeachment process? Bobby Rush did nothing to help Burris, either, by injecting race as an issue. Luckily, the Dems announced their intentions well before Blago appointed Burris, so I don’t believe the race argument can be placed upon the Dems. I don’t want anyone to be appointed to this seat until Blago is removed. Blago pretty much insulted every party he could by this appointment, except maybe a Mark Kirk or other potential GOP candidate for the 2010 election. If Burris is elected, and if he is seated, there is a good chance he will run again in 2010. If he runs in a loaded Democratic primary, he’s probably the odd in favorite to win the party’s nomination. If Kirk runs against Burris, Kirk, IMO, has the clear advantage. This is another reason why the Dems will fight against sitting Mr. Burris.
BTW, Burris is a fine man and has, at this time, no true demons in his closet. I don’t want him to be used by Blago for Blago’s hidden agenda.
The so called race card was played so blatantly and clumsily that I find it hard to believe it will not backfire.
After all, who can accuse Reid and the Senate Democrats for racism with a straight face, when Jesse White and Obama himself are unequivocally opposed to this appointment.
I agree with you on Minnesota, MSW
Wait until everything settles out
And, hopefully Franken will win
But, I’ve been persuaded
Why not seat Burris ?
The Democrats might not be able to stop it, anyway
He’s a decent candidate with no history of corruption
We may need that vote if the Republicans try to obstruct the economic recovery bills
It really is a HAPPY NEW YEAR
MSierra, you raise a very legitimate point regarding Burris, and I agree with your thoughts and concerns.
My concerns are solely regarding Blago appointing anyone to this position. I don’t see how anyone can be appointed by Blago without there being an appearance of impropriety. His appointment may have been honest…and it probably was honest. However, with Blago’s reputation, and with the cloud of uncertainty on whether he did, in fact, break the law, the average citizen could have serious doubts on Burris’s appointment. On top of this, it would be unfair to Burris, especially since he’s probably clean of any impropriety, to have this burden over his head for the next 2 years.
I would be fine, and would actually approve of Burris’s appointment, if the Illinois legislature develop a resolution that approved of Burris’s appointment. This would be more symbolic if anything (especially since such a resolution would be non-binding), that the legislature that was elected by the people of Illinois agree with such an appointment.
On a bigger picture, I’d question whether the Dems could keep this Senate seat in 2010 by appointing Burris. We all know that the GOP will question the validity of this appointment.
Anyway, I understand your concern about the Republicans attempts to stop the economic stimulus package. I believe that the Dems will solidly approve of this package, and probably get 4-5 reasonable GOP senators to support it too. Specter, Collins, and Snowe should come on board, and there’s a good chance that senators like Lugar, Voinovich and even McCain will lend their support.