WSJ editorial board member ignored consensus absentee-ballot process in accusing Franken of "manipulating" system
SUMMARY: Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberley A. Strassel claimed that Al Franken "has been manipulating the socks off the Minnesota system ... by litigating back to life absentee votes that had been rejected on Election Day." In fact, any rejected absentee ballot that was counted in the race was approved by the campaigns of both Franken and his opponent, Norm Coleman. Strassel also claimed the recount "took place behind the scenes"; in fact, the public was able to view the recounting of all ballots and attend all canvassing board meetings concerning the recount.
Writing about the Minnesota Senate race recount in her January 9 Wall Street Journal column, editorial board member Kimberley A. Strassel claimed that Democrat Al Franken "has been manipulating the socks off the Minnesota system, turning what had been a 700-plus vote lead for Mr. [Norm] Coleman into a 225-vote lead for himself. This was primarily accomplished by litigating back to life absentee votes that had been rejected on Election Day." But in asserting that Franken "manipulat[ed]" the Minnesota electoral system by "litigating back to life" previously rejected absentee ballots, Strassel ignored the procedure for counting rejected absentee ballots that was laid out by the state Supreme Court. Under its December 18 order, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that election officials should count only those absentee ballots that both camps agreed had been wrongly rejected. As City Pages (Minneapolis) reporter Emily Kaiser noted in a January 9 blog post, "any rejected absentee ballot that was counted in the race was approved by both campaigns based on a Minnesota Supreme Court decision." Strassel also falsely claimed that the Minnesota Senate election recount "took place behind the scenes." In fact, as the Minnesota Secretary of State's office noted, the "public is allowed to view the recounting of the ballots and to attend all county and state canvassing board meetings," and the Minnesota Secretary of State's website contains video of the Canvassing Board's meetings, as well as the official minutes and rulings on ballot challenges.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that on January 3, election officials counted "933 absentee ballots that all sides had agreed were wrongly rejected."
The Star Tribune editorial board -- which endorsed Coleman -- wrote on December 29, 2008: "Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who heads the Canvassing Board, vowed as the recount began that accuracy and transparency, not haste, would be paramount in the effort. Thus far, he's made good on that promise. The recount may be trying the patience of Minnesotans who wish they could flip to the final chapter and know now how this saga ends. But the Canvassing Board's good work has made it more likely that when the end comes, it will be accepted as fair."
From Strassel's January 9 Wall Street Journal column:
Al Franken began this week a man loved. It didn't matter he had produced material that ought to offend any liberal in good standing. It didn't matter that, under Minnesota law, he can't receive a certificate of election until Sen. Norm Coleman finishes his appeal, and so has no right to a seat.
Mr. Franken was also created out of scandal -- though, fortunately for him, the type that is today considered politics-as-usual. Mr. Franken has been manipulating the socks off the Minnesota system, turning what had been a 700-plus vote lead for Mr. Coleman into a 225-vote lead for himself. This was primarily accomplished by litigating back to life absentee votes that had been rejected on Election Day.
It was not so much a recount as a one-sided do-over. But since it took place behind the scenes, and since the comedian loosed the standard Democratic cry of "let every vote count," nobody got upset.
From Kaiser's City Pages blog post:
Ah yes, our favorite type of opinion pieces. Those that have no evidence to support their claim.
Unfortunately Strassel didn't do her research because the recount was amazingly transparent. It was conducted by a bipartisan state Canvassing Board that voted unanimously 95 percent of the time even on the most important issues. Coleman's campaign even trusted the Canvassing Board from the onset. All of the proceedings were streaming live on The UpTake for anyone interested in watching. And any interested resident could visit the county recount centers to watch the campaigns challenge ballots.
Oh, and "litigating back to life" those absentee ballots? She must not have realized that any rejected absentee ballot that was counted in the race was approved by both campaigns based on a Minnesota Supreme Court decision.
Oh for god's sake, Franken won, narrowly, but he won, let him serve. You can count election ballots from now until doomsday and you will never get the same count twice.
Norm Coleman, and those supporting you, move on. You look like sore losers.
Exactly Tommy, they do look like sore losers. The real losers now are the people of the state of Minnesota which will have to pay for court challenges and have one Senator for who knows how long.
2008 Minnesota Statute:
Subd. 3.Costs of contest.
If the contestee succeeds, costs of the contest must be paid by the contestant. If the contestant succeeds, costs of the contest must be paid by the contestee; except that if the contestee loses because of an error in the counting of ballots or canvass of the returns or because of any other irregularity in the election procedure, costs must be paid, in the discretion of the judge, by the election jurisdictions responsible for errors which resulted in the reversal of the prior results of the election.
In laymans terms, this means that the state of Minnesota is on the hook for the cost of the court challenge only if they screwed up the recount. And if they did screw it up, then the challenge was obviously warranted.
You can count election ballots from now until doomsday and you will never get the same count twice.
Tommy is right, sort-of. You wouldn't get the same count every time, but doomsday is long way off, we hope. I cringe however when folks suggest that either one could win on half the recounts. That Coleman was just unlucky. While it is possible, this isn't Florida. This state has maybe the best voting recount and appeal system that exists. A candidate shouldn't have to win the same election more than once. You go through the system, address all the concerns, and accept the winner.
You're right, if the recount were redone there would be very little difference the second time. A handful of the ballots where it was very borderline on whether there was "clear voter intent" might go differently the second time through, but that wouldn't be more than a couple of dozen. It's not even as though those would flip from one candidate to the other; it would more likely go to/from a candidate from/to the non-vote pile.
Those who are trying to cast doubt on this recount are either ignorant of the facts or have dishonest motives.
tommy,
Whoever loses looks like a sore loser. Incredible that the vote is that close. I like the way they did it in Georgia and have a runoff election.
AA,
Are you suggesting a runoff in this case? I think Georgia had one because there were 3 candidates and Georgia law requires at least 50.1% to win the seat (please correct me if I am wrong).
The sorest loser this cycle is Marilyn Musgrave who still hasn't conceded even though she lost by 12%!
fried,
There were three candidates in Minnesota too. I do believe the independent candidate, Dean Barkley garnered around 18% of the vote.
My mistake, thanks.
Thankfully it looks like we'll never know if Franken would have been a sore loser.
Nice projection though.
Georgia followed the laws of Georgia, Minnesota is following the laws of Minnesota. I thought you conservatives were all about the state's rights thing.
As for the sore loser comment- Coleman demanded that Franken immediately concede on election night and forgo a legally required recount. Coleman is the one suing now that the recount is over and it did not go in his favor.
Perhaps Franken may have gone to court if things went the other way. In that case it would probably be right to call him a sore loser. But that didn't happen, you just wish it did.
Wasn't this rag once called the "paper of record"?
Right now on this topic, that rag is more like a broken record, that keeps repeating the same lyric over and over.
I hate to be the nerd to point it out, but at the top of this item is a glaring typographical error.
Where it is written that "Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberley A. Strassel...", a few important words have been left out, making the statement confusing and incomplete.
It should read:
"rupert murdoch's ink-stained rag the Wall Street Journal, and his editorial board member, News Corp. employee lackey Kimberley A. Strassel..."
Again, sorry to be a nit-picking nerd, but that's the way it's properly spelled.
Thanks for the correction. I was wondering about Ms. Strassel. There's just so many of these people, writing nonsense and disguising their venom with an attempt at sounding erudite...you know, smart.
Not to generalize, but I'm seeing more and more women taking up the conservative cause as a representative. I wonder if its a strategy by the neo-conners to put a "pretty face" to their positions to soften the perceptions? Anyway, the reps seem to be in it for the money and face time, in hopes of becoming the next Michelle or Ann, which seems Judas-like.
Did nurse Ratchet have daughters?
So Murdoch is getting his moneys worth out of the WSJ purchase. Always good to find a worthy product for sale, and someone elses money to purchase it with.
You know Murdoch is furious about Franken, remember the FOX law suit with the book? Murdoch is using his new toy the WSJ to say any lie about Franken
Go Al!!!! Kick A** in Washington!!
I think Franken targetted the WSJ editorial pages in one of his books. Not a big surprise they're going after him-with or without Murdoch.
Listen, it is all part of the right wing media machine game.
WSJ continues week after week to publish these one-sided angry editorials so that it does not make it on their big news page.
Yet what this is intended to do is to create "sources" and more fodder for Dobbs, Coulter and Hannity to spout about on their programs and in their books.
It is just a filthy piece of grist for the right wing media mill that will be mentioned tonight and on Sunday as "proof" that Franken is stealing the election.
Fun stuff ...
Ding! Give the man a prize! The screechmonkeys will be saying "As reported in the Wall Street Journal..." without noting that they are quoting an opinion piece and trying as hard as they can to give the impression that some sort of investigation was done that led to the "facts" they are regurgitating.
Hmmm, who else would quote an opinion piece and present it as undisputable fact?
Wow. I've never seen so many lies packed in to 3 grafs. Well done Strassel.
Yeah, what you said. I'd like to "loose" my tongue on this broad. And the rough side at that.
Fox News needs to fill time with anything....Accuracy is NOT important to these idiots!!! I have never seen a station thast just makes any assertion about anything without any solid evidence! The State Minn. is far more knowledgeable about their recounts than some partisans from conservative fox news....LOSERS!!!
Someone should hold up side by side comparisons of the RW pundits whining about the MN recount and their comments back in 2000. I bet it'll be just like comparing their comments supporting the Invasion of Iraq with their comments condemning the action in Kosovo.
I bet it'll be just like comparing their comments supporting the Invasion of Iraq with their comments condemning the action in Kosovo.
I believe then Governor Bushie did not believe the US Military was a Police force. but it was fine for him to wage war and kill thousands.
Weren't these the same hacks who told people to quit crying over George Bush's victory in 2000?
Bush won then, Franken won now, let's move on.
Franken got a full recount. Bush didn't.