MN Sen Recount (UPDATE: Stuart Smalley certified winner, lawsuit forthcoming)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

MASS - sorry to be blunt, do you even know what you're talking about when you say the Republicans will gain "a lot" of Senate seats in 2010?

nope just makeing it up as I go along. 

Try looking at the map. It's these plus DE and the other NY seat. There's no way that it'd be that great for the Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004

I'd say these Democratic seats *might* be vulnerable: CO, IN,  IL, NV. IN is safe with Bayh. IL is probably safe with a non Blago tainted candidate. I'd be happy to see a Republican win in NV.

In any case, there are a lot more potentially vulnerable Republicans.

[muon2]

Will Cornyn or someone plan to draw a distinction between the seating of Franken compared to Burris in the Senate? Both will arrive with official credentials from their state and both with a legal cloud surrounding the credentials for that seat. It's true that one is an election and one is an appointment, but is that enough to draw the distinction?

While it is a coincidence that there are these two cases at the same time, they actually are fairly different. Only extreme Republican hacks would think that there was something wrong in provisionally seating the man who got the most votes in the Minnesota election. The Illinois situation has more complicated legal and ethical issues.

I agree that there are substantially different ethics between the IL Gov and the MN Canvassing Board, but that is exactly what the Powell case says is irrelevant to Senate seating. If Coleman files a court challenge, both Franken and Burris will have equally deficient certification credentials to present to the Senate.

The Senate should provisionally seat the obvious winner while the frivolous challenges are being dealt with. Coleman wanted to steal the election like Bush did in 2000, but he lost fair and square.

And how is Burris' appointment any less obvious?

[Barack Hussian YO MAMA!!!!]

MASS - sorry to be blunt, do you even know what you're talking about when you say the Republicans will gain "a lot" of Senate seats in 2010?

nope just makeing it up as I go along. 

Try looking at the map. It's these plus DE and the other NY seat. There's no way that it'd be that great for the Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004

I'd say these Democratic seats *might* be vulnerable: CO, IN,  IL, NV. IN is safe with Bayh. IL is probably safe with a non Blago tainted candidate. I'd be happy to see a Republican win in NV.

In any case, there are a lot more potentially vulnerable Republicans.

yeah I see what your saying but its hard for me to imagine that the democrats would win three conggressional  elections in a row, I could be wrong but doesn't that buck historic trends?
this is all from Dave site going back to 1990. 
 
in 2008 the DEMS gained 8 seats counting franken
2006 the DEMS gained 6 seats
in 2002 the GOP gained 2 seats
in 2000 the dems gained 4 seats
1998 there was 0 net gain for ether party
1996 the GOP gained 2 seats
in 1994 the GOP gained 7 seats
in 1992 there was no net gain for either party
in 1990 the DEM's gained one seat. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And how is Burris' appointment any less obvious?

Are you arguing that Burris should be Senator?

MASS - sorry to be blunt, do you even know what you're talking about when you say the Republicans will gain "a lot" of Senate seats in 2010?

nope just makeing it up as I go along. 

Try looking at the map. It's these plus DE and the other NY seat. There's no way that it'd be that great for the Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004

I'd say these Democratic seats *might* be vulnerable: CO, IN,  IL, NV. IN is safe with Bayh. IL is probably safe with a non Blago tainted candidate. I'd be happy to see a Republican win in NV.

In any case, there are a lot more potentially vulnerable Republicans.

yeah I see what your saying but its hard for me to imagine that the democrats would win three conggressional  elections in a row, I could be wrong but doesn't that buck historic trends?
this is all from Dave site going back to 1990. 
 
in 2008 the DEMS gained 8 seats counting franken
2006 the DEMS gained 6 seats
in 2002 the GOP gained 2 seats
in 2000 the dems gained 4 seats
1998 there was 0 net gain for ether party
1996 the GOP gained 2 seats
in 1994 the GOP gained 7 seats
in 1992 there was no net gain for either party
in 1990 the DEM's gained one seat. 

Well, worst case the Democrats only lose a couple of Senate seats. I don't think it would be that unusual for them to gain in 2010. Remember, this isn't the House, which does tend follow the rule that the President's party tends to lose, just not in 1998, 2002, a couple of other random elections, or for the Democratic-Republican party.

Anyways, the Democrats did have a net gain of Senate seats in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, and 1990, although the Republicans had no net change in 1982. Before that, the Republicans gained in 1976, 1978, and 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:U.S._Senate_elections

[Lunar]

MASS - the thing is, if there are 2:1 more Republican seats running, it'll be hard for the GOP to pick up more than *one* seat.  If the Republicans picked up two seats in 2010 it'd be a major upset.  Three would be a revolution

[Keystone Phil]

If the Republicans picked up two seats in 2010 it'd be a major upset.  Three would be a revolution

Dude, come on. Wait and see how things go nationally.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The realization that I no longer have a worthless sack of sh!t like Coleman "representing" me in the Senate has sunk in. I feel so liberated!

I also don't have any Republican representation now on any level. And once Obama takes office and if we take the Governor's mansion in 2010, I won't have a single Republican as an elected official, period.

[Lunar]

If the Republicans picked up two seats in 2010 it'd be a major upset.  Three would be a revolution

Dude, come on. Wait and see how things go nationally.

Am I being unreasonable?  Outline the reasonable scenario where the Republicans gain 3+X or more and the Democrats gain less than X.

[Iosif]

CO is the only real GOP hope for a pick up depending on how this new boy Bennett is. Other than that all the Dems are varying degrees of safe. Nevada is shifting hard to the left, the GOP doesn't exist in Arkansas, Kirk can't knock off anybody who makes it through the Dem primary statewide and Schwarzenegger has pathetic approvals.

Whereas the GOP have to defend Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania if Specter gets primaried and even maybe if he doesn't, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio and maybe even Alaska.

Dems will make 60 easy, Republicans will just have to close there eyes, bend over and hope its gentle. 2012 is there best bet, but with Obama coatails...

It'll be a good while before the GOP takes back congress.

[Keystone Phil]

If the Republicans picked up two seats in 2010 it'd be a major upset.  Three would be a revolution

Dude, come on. Wait and see how things go nationally.

Am I being unreasonable?  Outline the reasonable scenario where the Republicans gain 3+X or more and the Democrats gain less than X.

I'm not saying that you're being totally unreasonable. We don't have the "right" seats up in 2010. That being said, give Obama has bad first half of his first term and then the fact that midterms are typically bad for the party in power, we may see the GOP get quite a few seats. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't rule it out. You guys are getting way too cocky. Look at Iosif's post above mine. He's already saying that Obama will have coattails in 2012.

[Iosif]

If the Republicans picked up two seats in 2010 it'd be a major upset.  Three would be a revolution

Dude, come on. Wait and see how things go nationally.

Am I being unreasonable?  Outline the reasonable scenario where the Republicans gain 3+X or more and the Democrats gain less than X.

I'm not saying that you're being totally unreasonable. We don't have the "right" seats up in 2010. That being said, give Obama has bad first half of his first term and then the fact that midterms are typically bad for the party in power, we may see the GOP get quite a few seats. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't rule it out. You guys are getting way too cocky. Look at Iosif's post above mine. He's already saying that Obama will have coattails in 2012.

Crossing your fingers and hoping Obama screws up isn't really the best policy for the Republican party.

You've been rejected, emphatically, in two consecutive elections. The party can't just stand still and hope for things to change, it needs to reinvent itself. Much likes the Tories it'll take more than 2 years.

And if you look at a map it's near on impossible for the GOP to pick up "quite a few seats".

[Lunar]

If the Republicans picked up two seats in 2010 it'd be a major upset.  Three would be a revolution

Dude, come on. Wait and see how things go nationally.

Am I being unreasonable?  Outline the reasonable scenario where the Republicans gain 3+X or more and the Democrats gain less than X.

I'm not saying that you're being totally unreasonable. We don't have the "right" seats up in 2010. That being said, give Obama has bad first half of his first term and then the fact that midterms are typically bad for the party in power, we may see the GOP get quite a few seats. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't rule it out. You guys are getting way too cocky. Look at Iosif's post above mine. He's already saying that Obama will have coattails in 2012.

I have no comment on 2012, don't change the subject to be "you guys" and talk about something I didn't say in order to prove your point -- that extremely intellectually dishonest.  I do think that the GOP gaining 2 seats in 2010 would be a major  upset and gaining 3 seats would be indicative of something larger (I called it a "revolution" - but perhaps a more accurate term could be supplies - "A MAJOR SHIFT?")

I'm talking about 2010 and I have no reason to think that the GOP gaining 2 seats then wouldn't be an upset.  2012 the GOP should be favored to gain seats given the ratio of Dem to Rep seats up for grabs.  But this isn't about 2012

[Keystone Phil]

Crossing your fingers and hoping Obama screws up isn't really the best policy for the Republican party.

I'm not doing that. I'm entertaining the possibility that he won't be popular. I guess that's not possible to his fans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the Dems were rejected in 2002 and 2004. The GOP was on course for 60 seats in 2006. How'd that work out?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, if things are bad for Obama and the Dems, the seats we now consider "Very likely Dem" could be tossups.

I have no comment on 2012, don't change the subject to be "you guys" and talk about something I didn't say in order to prove your point -- that extremely intellectually dishonest.  I do think that the GOP gaining 2 seats in 2010 would be a major  upset and gaining 3 seats would be indicative of something larger (I called it a "revolution" - but perhaps a more accurate term could be supplies - "A MAJOR SHIFT?")

I'm not changing the subject. I'm talking about 2010 and you ruled it out. Don't accuse me of being intellectually dishonest when you know I was talking about 2010 and you won't entertain what I'm talking about.

If Obama is unpopular, picking up two seats isn't some major upset. Popular incumbents can fall in bad years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So then how the hell was I being intellectually dishonest when I said that "you guys" don't see the GOP getting seats in 2010? I mentioned one person's post about 2012. It speaks to the overall cockiness.

[Eraserhead]

I'm interested to see what Franken can pull off as a U.S. Senator. The likely answer to my question is "not much" but we'll see. It'll be pretty entertaining whether he's successful or not.

[Lunar]

I'm interested to see what Franken can pull off as a U.S. Senator. The likely answer to my question is "not much" but we'll see. It'll be pretty entertaining whether he's successful or not.

That "not much" probably will be because Reid & Durbin & Kerry won't take Franken seriously unless he's the defining vote for something (unlikely).

I'll be interested to see if Reid will be forced to promise Arkansas a lot of pork in exchange for Lincoln's vote on the Union bill

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm interested to see what Franken can pull off as a U.S. Senator. The likely answer to my question is "not much" but we'll see. It'll be pretty entertaining whether he's successful or not.

That "not much" probably will be because Reid & Durbin & Kerry won't take Franken seriously unless he's the defining vote for something (unlikely).

I'll be interested to see if Reid will be forced to promise Arkansas a lot of pork in exchange for Lincoln's vote on the Union bill

The dumbsh**ts of Arkansas get enough pork already.

[Lunar]

It's official kids:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50405S20090105

Franken's to be certified the winner

[muon2]

And how is Burris' appointment any less obvious?

Are you arguing that Burris should be Senator?

Immediately after Blagojevich's arrest there was bipartisan agreement to hold a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat. A special election required legislation and a bill was drafted, ready for filing, by the end of the week after the arrest. The intent was to pass the bill on the Monday and Tuesday one week after the arrest.

The draft of that bill included language anticipating that Blago would an appointment before the bill became law. That language would relegate the appointment to "temporary" status, such that the appointment would only be valid until the special election winner was certified. The leaders of the legislature believed that an appointment by Blago would be valid, or that language would not have been part of the bill.

I echo the legal reasoning of the legislature. I see an absence of any allegation that this particular appointment involved an unlawful act.  The appropriate action is to accept the appointment however unpalatable, and move forward with a special election that would obviate further need of an appointment to fill the seat.

[minionofmidas]

And how is Burris' appointment any less obvious?

Are you arguing that Burris should be Senator?

Immediately after Blagojevich's arrest there was bipartisan agreement to hold a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat. A special election required legislation and a bill was drafted, ready for filing, by the end of the week after the arrest. The intent was to pass the bill on the Monday and Tuesday one week after the arrest.

The draft of that bill included language anticipating that Blago would an appointment before the bill became law. That language would relegate the appointment to "temporary" status, such that the appointment would only be valid until the special election winner was certified. The leaders of the legislature believed that an appointment by Blago would be valid, or that language would not have been part of the bill.

I echo the legal reasoning of the legislature. I see an absence of any allegation that this particular appointment involved an unlawful act.  The appropriate action is to accept the appointment however unpalatable, and move forward with a special election that would obviate further need of an appointment to fill the seat.

Could - just in theory; no reason why the Ill. state Reps should agree to it - that language be passed as a law in its own right, so that Burris' terms ends when Blago's successor names a new replacement Senator (ie just give Governors the right to change appointed Senators' at will?)

[muon2]

And how is Burris' appointment any less obvious?

Are you arguing that Burris should be Senator?

Immediately after Blagojevich's arrest there was bipartisan agreement to hold a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat. A special election required legislation and a bill was drafted, ready for filing, by the end of the week after the arrest. The intent was to pass the bill on the Monday and Tuesday one week after the arrest.

The draft of that bill included language anticipating that Blago would an appointment before the bill became law. That language would relegate the appointment to "temporary" status, such that the appointment would only be valid until the special election winner was certified. The leaders of the legislature believed that an appointment by Blago would be valid, or that language would not have been part of the bill.

I echo the legal reasoning of the legislature. I see an absence of any allegation that this particular appointment involved an unlawful act.  The appropriate action is to accept the appointment however unpalatable, and move forward with a special election that would obviate further need of an appointment to fill the seat.

Could - just in theory; no reason why the Ill. state Reps should agree to it - that language be passed as a law in its own right, so that Burris' terms ends when Blago's successor names a new replacement Senator (ie just give Governors the right to change appointed Senators' at will?)

That's an interesting idea. I don't know whether the reading of the 17th amendment allows for more than one appointment prior to an election. "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

[minionofmidas]

That's an interesting idea. I don't know whether the reading of the 17th amendment allows for more than one appointment prior to an election. "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

Ah yes. You're right.

Of course, this language seems to suppose that by-elections occur much as for the House.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Norm's plea for counting an additional 600+ absentee ballots he alleges were wrongly rejected (that happen to be from strong Coleman areas) was rejected this morning.

The canvassing board will certify Al Franken the winner this afternoon and Coleman will then file a suit challenging the results... but his two main arguments still wouldn't be enough to put him ahead.

Norm Coleman is beginning to sound more and more like Hillary Clinton this past May.

[Lunar]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-05/al-franken-is-a-big-fat-target/

[Torie]

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is not a happy camper. I would think that the Court will insist on consistent standards and counting all absentee ballots "wrongly" rejected, not just ones in counties (mostly Franken dominated ones), that chose to count them.

    * JANUARY 5, 2009, 4:42 A.M. ET

Funny Business in Minnesota
In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken.

   

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.
[Review & Outlook] AP

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.

In other cases, the board has been flagrantly inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he's benefited both ways from the board's inconsistency.

And then there are the absentee ballots. The Franken campaign initially howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. Many Franken-leaning counties did so, submitting 1,350 ballots to include in the results. But many Coleman-leaning counties have yet to complete a re-examination. Despite this lack of uniformity, and though the state Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, Mr. Ritchie's office nonetheless plowed through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees this weekend, padding Mr. Franken's edge by a further 176 votes.
   
Both campaigns have also suggested that Mr. Ritchie's office made mistakes in tabulating votes that had been challenged by either of the campaigns. And the Canvassing Board appears to have applied inconsistent standards in how it decided some of these challenged votes -- in ways that, again on net, have favored Mr. Franken.

The question is how the board can certify a fair and accurate election result given these multiple recount problems. Yet that is precisely what the five members seem prepared to do when they meet today. Some members seem to have concluded that because one of the candidates will challenge the result in any event, why not get on with it and leave it to the courts? Mr. Coleman will certainly have grounds to contest the result in court, but he'll be at a disadvantage given that courts are understandably reluctant to overrule a certified outcome.

Meanwhile, Minnesota's other Senator, Amy Klobuchar, is already saying her fellow Democrats should seat Mr. Franken when the 111th Congress begins this week if the Canvassing Board certifies him as the winner. This contradicts Minnesota law, which says the state cannot award a certificate of election if one party contests the results. Ms. Klobuchar is trying to create the public perception of a fait accompli, all the better to make Mr. Coleman look like a sore loser and build pressure on him to drop his legal challenge despite the funny recount business.

Minnesotans like to think that their state isn't like New Jersey or Louisiana, and typically it isn't. But we can't recall a similar recount involving optical scanning machines that has changed so many votes, and in which nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate. The Coleman campaign clearly misjudged the politics here, and the apparent willingness of a partisan like Mr. Ritchie to help his preferred candidate, Mr. Franken. If the Canvassing Board certifies Mr. Franken as the winner based on the current count, it will be anointing a tainted and undeserving Senator.

[Brittain33]

Talking Points Memo's response to the WSJ:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that the WSJ goes on and on about how unpleasant it is to decide a victor with so many irregularities--which is true!--but the only solution they have is for Coleman to keep things up in court, piling muck upon muck and hoping he could come out the winner. This implicitly recognizes that Republicans signed off on all these decisions as well as Democrats. If they had the courage of their convictions, they'd argue to have the election vacated and the process changed for the future. Instead, they cherry-pick complaints and then commit themselves to the process provided it could yield a Coleman victory. Some principle.