Shades of Florida, But With An Insidious Twist
"Steal" is a strong word to use when referring to an election, and whenever I refer to the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota between Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman as a stolen election for the Democrat, the answer from the liberal left is more often than not, "the person that got the most votes won."
Funny, they weren't saying that during the controversy over the Gore/Bush fight for votes in Florida during the 2000 Election.
The "most votes" argument, however, is a poor one when discussing the Minnesota Senate race because there is mounting evidence that Franken did not get most of the votes, or at least not honestly. There is substantial evidence of double-counting during the recount. Double-counting is a situation regarding how counties made duplicates of original paper ballots that were too defective to be counted by Minnesota's automatic tabulating equipment. Such duplicates, and the originals, rather than be properly labeled and segregated, wound up included in the hand recount, more often than not adding votes in favor of Al Franken. One of the members of the Minnesota Canvassing Board admitted that there was "a very good likelihood" of double counting. According to the Heritage Fondation, another member dismissed the concern "because there was very little of it." Of course, in an election decided by only 300 votes, it would take "very little" to change the outcome.
When conducting the recount, there were allegedly also a number of absentee ballots that had been rejected for not complying with state law. However, Norm Coleman's team contends that there is evidence that various Minnesota counties applied state rules differently. In other words, Coleman's legal team claims that the precincts applied a more strict inperpretation of the law in Repubican-dominated counties, while in Democratically-dominated counties the application was of a much looser standard. It is argued that the Democrat-dominated counties accepted absentee ballots that would have been rejected in other counties where Republican votes were being rejected.
The evidence is being examined in the appeal by Coleman, and Coleman's attorneys are arguing that this disparate treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The appeal by Coleman is of the decision of a three-judge trial court that declared Al Franken the winner--by a margin of 312 votes out of 3 million cast. Earlier, the Minnesota Canvassing Board had given Franken a win by only 225 votes. The election night count had Coleman the winner by 215 votes.
In addition to the evidence of double-counting, and different treatment of ballots depending on who the voter voted for, the original trial court refused to let Coleman inspect the problem precincts, as well, which is allowed under Minnesota law. The court later ruled that Coleman's team had failed to establish that there was double-counting in the recount, which could have been established had the Coleman team been allowed to inspect the problem princincts.
This is not to even take into account that some princincts, during the recount, chose to use the numbers from the electronic count over the hand recount instead, often with a result of giving Franken more votes than if the hand recount number had been used.
In an election where absentee ballots have suddenly appeared in trunks of cars, and just so happened to be to Franken's benefit, it is important that Coleman's appeal be treated fairly. Al Franken's team, and supporters, have been dishonest from the start, and it is hoped that the truth shall prevail when on June 1, the Minnesota Supreme Court hears the argument on the closest U.S. Senate race in the state's history.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Minnesota Senate Race: The Saga Continues - The Heritage Foundation
No comments:
Post a Comment