AP ignores testimony by MN voters in Coleman case supporting rejection of absentee ballots
SUMMARY: In an article about the Minnesota Senate election recount trial, the AP reported that "voters testified Tuesday their ballots had been unfairly rejected as Republican Norm Coleman argued thousands of disqualified absentee ballots should be counted in the U.S. Senate race" and quoted one voter who testified that he felt his ballot had been improperly rejected. However, the AP did not note that the testimony of two of those voters reportedly showed that their ballots appear to have been properly rejected.
In a January 27 article about the Minnesota Senate election recount trial, The Associated Press reported that "Minnesota voters testified Tuesday their ballots had been unfairly rejected as Republican Norm Coleman argued thousands of disqualified absentee ballots should be counted in the U.S. Senate race" and quoted one voter, Gerald Anderson, who testified that he felt his ballot had been improperly rejected. However, although the AP reported that "[t]he personal stories that Anderson and five other voters told are just one front on Coleman's effort to have more votes counted," the AP did not note that the testimony of two of those voters reportedly showed that their ballots appear to have been properly rejected. Video of the testimonies of the six witnesses is available here.
Talking Points Memo's Eric Kleefeld noted:
One of the voters was Douglas Thompson, who admitted under oath that his girlfriend filled out his absentee ballot application for him, signing his name with her own hand and purporting to be himself. His ballot was rejected because the signature on his ballot envelope (his own) did not match the signature on the application (his girlfriend's). The Coleman team's argument appears to be that he is still a legal voter in Minnesota, as the signature on the ballot was his own, even if admitted dishonesty was involved in getting the ballot.
Keep in mind: Thompson's story came up during the direct examination by Coleman lawyer James Langdon. So the Coleman camp fully knew this information and decided to make him into a witness.
Another one of the voters, an older man named Wesley Briest, initially responded that he voted at the polls -- not by absentee. Then Coleman attorney James Langdon showed him his absentee ballot envelope, reminding him that he did not go to the polls, too. Upon cross-examination by Franken lawyer Kevin Hamilton, Briest admitted that his wife, who served as the witness on his ballot, did not fully complete the witness section of the absentee ballot. [emphasis in original]
In contrast with the AP, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported in a January 28 article that "Wesley Briest, of Eagan, who initially said he voted in person and then, when shown a copy of his absentee ballot envelope, was reminded that he voted absentee. His ballot was witnessed by his wife, who neglected to put her address on the envelope." The Pioneer Press also reported that "Douglas Thompson, who was visiting his cancer-stricken mother in Arizona on Election Day, said he signed his absentee ballot envelope, like he was supposed to, but that his girlfriend signed his name on his absentee ballot application, at his request."
From The Associated Press article:
Minnesota voters testified Tuesday their ballots had been unfairly rejected as Republican Norm Coleman argued thousands of disqualified absentee ballots should be counted in the U.S. Senate race.
"Perhaps my signature is not as good as it once was," Gerald Anderson, of St. Paul, told the three-judge panel hearing Coleman's lawsuit. "It gets cloudy and crooked. I am 75 years old."
But that shouldn't have disqualified his vote, he said: "I want it back. I'm entitled to my vote."
A statewide recount gave Democrat Al Franken a 225-vote edge. The personal stories that Anderson and five other voters told are just one front on Coleman's effort to have more votes counted.
Coleman's legal team had intended to submit copies of thousands of ballots as exhibits, but the judges disqualified them as evidence Monday because campaign workers had marked on some envelopes. On Tuesday, much of the panel's time was spent with state officials, lawyers and court staff working out a plan to get about 11,000 rejected absentees to St. Paul from counties throughout the state.
Actual testimony didn't begin until afternoon in the case, expected to last weeks.
It wasn't clear whom Anderson supported; neither Coleman's nor Franken's attorneys asked. He said he didn't know his ballot had been rejected until the state Republican Party called him about two weeks ago. And Anderson wasn't sure why his vote was rejected, only guessing that it was his signature.
Minnesota law cites four reasons for rejecting absentee ballots: The name and address on the ballot's envelope do not match a name and address on the voter rolls; the signature on the envelope doesn't match the voter's signature on file; the voter was not registered when he or she voted; or the voter went on to vote on Election Day too.
Coleman is arguing that in many cases, those standards were applied differently from county to county, violating the constitutional standard of equal protection.
Hundreds of improperly rejected absentee ballots were opened and added to the count during the recount phase through a process set up by the Minnesota Supreme Court -- a process that gave both campaigns a say in which ballots were added.
In all, about 11,000 rejected absentee ballots remain uncounted. But the number that the Coleman lawyers say should be counted has shifted often, leading Franken's lawyers to accuse him of a haphazard case looking for any way to erase Franken's lead.
"At some point, former Senator Coleman needs to settle on what the universe is of ballots they believe were wrongly rejected," Franken attorney Marc Elias said.
Franken is arguing that some errors are unavoidable in elections, but Minnesota's officials made no systematic or widespread mistakes.
59. What a wonderful sounding number!
I've argued all along that improperly filled out ballots shouldn't count, period. Figure it out or go away, voting isn't that difficult.
But I've been told that voter intent is critical and we need to count every vote, regardless of how the ballot was filled out. That's a great position to be an advocate for when you are losing. Coleman was never interested in counting these votes when he was in the lerad, now he needs them.
I go back to the question: If voter intent is so damn important, why can't these votes count? They are clear in their intent for the candidate. These "properly" rejected absentee ballots are no good, but voting for "Frankenstein" is golden.
Only in Minnesota.
Well, why can't we have one method to vote across the entire country using the exact same equipment everywhere, and why can't it record every vote properly so we can have a paper trail should we ever need to review it?
I agree. And let's have everyone show some I.D before they use that equipment. Record every vote properly cast by every citizen who hasn't squandered that right. It makes perfect sense to me.
Maybe we could add funds to pay for your national voter ID mandate to the stimulus package, but I don't know how cost effective that would be.
Minnesota's laws in this regard are quite reasonable. There are 4 reasons specified in law for properly rejecting absentee ballots. The signature must match. That is the one that might swing a few more ballots from PRAB to IRAB. The address on the ballot must match the address on the ballot application. The voter must be registered to vote in that precinct. The voter must not have already voted.
Some might be gained based on the first. Perhaps a small number were improperly rejected on the second, but the standard should be fairly strict. However, I hope you'll agree that those rejected for the last two shouldn't be counted regardless of voter intent.
I have no problem with rejecting absentee ballots that are filled out incorrectly. Again, figure it out people. I would definitely argue that we should put better safeguards in place to ensure that those who show up at the polls are who they say they are. Voter ID's would be a good start.
We don't have that, obviously, and in an election this close, that is extremely problematic in my view.
Norm doesn't deserve to win even if he has the votes, his legal team is more of a clown posse than good representation. Franken beat him at every turn.
Voter ID laws create expense and bureaucract to address a problem that is almost nonexistent. Voter fraud simply doesn't exist to any real degree in the country. If there's a cost for the card it would be an illegal poll tax. If travel is required to obtain a card it would be an illegal poll tax. If time off from work is required to get a card it would be an illegal poll tax. And all to address a nonexistent problem.
"Almost nonexistant" could still be a 226 vote differential out of 3 million cast. That's "almost nonexistent".
Most people already have valid picture ID's. Those that don't should be able to apply for a free one. The government spends a hell of a lot more on other things for a hell of a lot less.
By the way, since we don't check that sort of thing, how do you know how "nonexistent" the problem is? After an election decided by 225 votes (as of today) I think it's time to get serious about that.
No, 226 votes out of 3 million is grossly out of proportion to any actual voter fraud that's been found in the last decade or so in any investigation. This is a good source for verification of voter fraud cases across the nation. Thorough investigations have consistently found that the level of fraud discovered is well below the 226 in 3 million threshold. That margin of victory was about 0.0078%. Frequencies of voter fraud were found at rates of 0.0003%, 0.0002%, 0.000009%, 0.0006% and so on. The Minnesota margin was 13 times the largest of those frequencies and for the election to be swung we'd have to assume that all of those fraudulent votes went for Franken. If even a small percentage went for Coleman, a much larger multiple would be necessary.
And don't forget, that ridiculously large amount of voter fraud would only swing the result of the closest Senatorial election in our country's history. To swing a normal statewide election would require levels of voter fraud the likes of which have never been detected in modern times. And voter fraud of the sort that ID cards could prevent is one of the easiest forms of election fraud to discover, even if it is after the fact.
Here's another source - The Myth of Voter Fraud. I can provide more. There simply isn't evidence of widespread, substantial voter fraud.
Voter ID is a cure that's worse than the disease.
Oops, the NYT link above is an editorial. I thought I was linking to this investigative piece on the prevalence of voter fraud. Here's a paper on the Politics of Voter Fraud that shows how the false charges of voter fraud are being used to suppress legal voting. It also makes reference to much other research on voter fraud. Did you know that from 2002 to 2005 there were only 38 federal prosecutions for voter fraud across the entire country? 14 of those were dismissed or acquitted. That's 24 individuals across the entire country over a 4-year period who committed voter fraud. It really is not a problem worth the expense and bureaucracy of a Voter ID law.
To me, that's like saying there were only 1,000 people speeding because we only gave out 1,000 speeding tickets.
I'm not saying it's widespread either, but I don't se this beaurocratic nightmare in requiring it that you keep throwing out there.
Voter fraud is a lot easier to detect than speeding. We've just finished with an administration that was obsessed with that nonexistent problem and, despite all of their best efforts, could not find any significant incidence of voter fraud.
I never called it a bureaucratic nightmare. I called it a bureaucracy and expense that is completely unnecessary because it addresses an almost non-existent problem. I'm positive that implementation of Voter ID laws will prevent more eligible voters from voting than it will prevent fraudulent votes. That's based on the evidence.
Your last comment may very well be correct. I don't dispute you on that.
Voter ID laws would not prevent any eligible voter from voting. People may make the choice not to vote because of the voter ID requirement, but the requirement itself would not prevent them from voting.
I can't prove it, but if you sincerely believe there were only 38 people over a four year period in the ENTIRE COUNTRY who voted in place of somebody else, or voted twice, or voted for a dead person, or was a dead person but voted anyways, or voted when they had lost their right to vote, or voted when they NEVER HAD the right to vote. If you think that happened a total of 38 times in a four year period then you and I see this issue completely differently.
Which is fine but there will be no convincing the other, I'm pretty sure about that.
C'mon, bruce, you're usually more honest with other people's words than that. I didn't say that there were only 38 incidents across the US. But when only 38 can be discovered over 4 years yielding only 24 convictions, doesn't that indicate that the problem just isn't very large? Especially for a crime that's as easy to detect after the fact as voter fraud?
It strains any common sense to suggest that there is any on a scale that would ever swing any statewide election. Perhaps, just perhaps, it might be accomplished in a small local election, but then the odds of being caught go way up without the aid of Voter ID. The most common means of election fraud would be completely unaffected by Voter ID.
I'm not trying to play word games. Word games are for people with weak arguments. ;-)
Honestly, I don't know how it's detectable if I vote in Hudson Wisconsin, and then go vote in St Paul and give my buddy's name who I know is vacationing in Mexico and he told me I could go vote for him because he doesn't care about politics.
To me that would be completely simple to do with virtually no chance of getting caught. But perhaps I'm wrong. Thanks for the discussion!
You might get away with it in that narrow set of circumstances, but then again, you might get caught and charged with a federal offense. How many people encounter that kind of situation and how many of those would be persuaded to commit a federal crime for no real gain? Getting enough people to use other people's identities to sway an election, or even make a dent in the totals, magnifies the likelihood of getting caught beyond what anyone would risk. Voter ID is a huge process to solve an almost nonexistent problem It's like being flown by helicopter to the Mayo Clinic for a splinter. (I felt the need for a new analogy)
BTW, did you move to Hudson, or was that just for your example?
That was just for my example. I'm still in Prior Lake.
Here's some supporting evidence for ya, bill!
Only one voter fraud case found
By Kimball Perry • kperry@enquirer.com • January 27, 2009
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said he had allegations last fall of widespread voter fraud – allegations a special prosecutor reported Tuesday were wrong, noting the only voter fraud found was from a Connecticut man who told on himself.
“Ultimately,” Special Prosecutor Michael O’Neill wrote in a report, “the investigators discovered ‘get-out-the-vote’ practices, sponsored by community organizations, which took full advantage of this unique absentee-voting period, but no evidence these practices violated Ohio law.”“Told ya so,” Tim Burke, chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party as well as chairman of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, said with glee of O’Neill’s report.
Thanks. That's no surprise to those of us who have read up on the topic.
I love the comment from Burke.
Only one voter fraud case found = only one voter fraud case occurred.
That is not true.
So it's a good thing that nobody is making, or even hinting at, that claim.
Still, it's NOT insignificant that an extensive search took place specifically for voter fraud and only found one case.
"No consistent evidence that counties that have higher percentages of minority, poor, elderly or less educated populations suffer any reduction in voter turnout relative to other counties;" according to a 2007 report from the Institute of Public Policy that was conducted on voting in Indiana before and after the photo identification laws were passed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28859696/
A good analysis of the Indiana Voter ID issue can be found in this Salon essay. I liked this part:
There is no dispute that Indiana's photo-ID requirement addresses one, and only one, species of fraud—so-called "in-person impersonation fraud," which would occur if an ineligible voter were to come to the polls and attempt to cast a ballot by falsely claiming the identity of an eligible voter. In the entire history of Indiana, the total number of reported instances of this kind of fraud is zero. Nor is there reliable evidence that in-person impersonation fraud has occurred anywhere else in the country.
The essay also points out that approximately 10% of eligible voters in this country lack any form of government issued ID. That's over 20 million people. Let's say that only 1% of 1% of that group (a ridiculously low percentage, but I'll err in favor of the opposition) has significant difficulties in obtaining the ID for reasons of disability, finances, work schedules, birth certificate problems (there are still a significant number of people with no birth certificates), transportation problems, religious restrictions or any of many, many other possible problems. That still means that over 2,000 people in the country are disenfranchised in order to address a crime that, at most, is committed by only a tiny fraction of that number.
Once again, the question becomes why are so many small-government conservatives in favor of adding government expense and bureaucracy in order to address a small portion of a problem that is almost nonexistent?
It comes down to ulterior motives, ignorance or just the warm fuzzy feeling they would get from the requirement.
I'm in favor of it because I believe it enhances the security of the process. It will probably not occur for the reasons you have stated.
However, since in my view voting in place of somebody else is virtually undetectable in our current system, I find the lack of evidence that these situations have occurred to be unconvincing that we shouldn't try to prevent it.
No, that's only 24 that were discovered, prosecuted and found guilty. We can use all kinds of statistics to prove what ever point we want, but the plain truth is, we don't know that actual answer.
Ok, looking back at my wording I guess one sentence did suggust that I was saying that the 24 were all that occurred. That's not what I meant to say. I guess that's what bruce1ace read when he gave the response I scolded him for. [Sorry bruce. mea culpa]
However, the very, very, VERY small number of actual cases of voter fraud discovered really should be seen as indicative of the scope of the problem. Voter fraud really is one of the easiest crimes to detect after the fact. There have been extensive efforts to look for it in recent years and it's not being found. The plain truth is, we have a pretty good idea of the actual answer.
Picture Id's are required to fly, write checks, buy liquor and cigarettes, numerous other things. NEARLY everybody already has one. You need one to function in society.
What's the downside in requiring an ID? Even if there isn't a problem currently, it would give the appearance of a more secure system. Protecting valid votes against potential invalid ones seems reasonable to me. This whole "inconvenience" argument doesn't fly. It's 2009.
This country has spent over two hundred years developing voting systems that make voter fraud very difficult while keeping voting itself very easy. The evidence in existence shows that we have been very successful in accomplishing that.
Voter ID will do almost nothing to reduce real voter fraud. One of the links above (I'll look it up if you insist) pointed out that of the extremely small number of voter fraud cases that were discovered, over half of them wouldn't have been prevented by Voter ID laws. As I said before, if it involves a fee, if it involves travel or if it involves time off from work it qualifies as an illegal poll tax.
When we're looking at government action, shouldn't the question of "Why should we do it?" come before the question of "Why shouldn't we do it?" But even on that basis, the negatives simply outweigh the positives by a lot.
I guess since 95% of the posters on here believe the last two elections before this one were "stolen", they may dispute your first comment about how great our system of voting is.
One point I will agree with you on is that voting IS easy. How people can screw it up is really beyond me, but yet there it is.
I believe he said "voter fraud". Election fraud is clearly another matter.
Exactly. If those elections were stolen it wasn't by means of voter fraud. And the methods that are alleged to have been used to accomplish that election fraud wouldn't have been influenced in the least by Voter ID laws.
You are both right about that, I stand corrected.
And thank you for saying "alleged".
What's really funny is that Coleman initially fought to prevent any of the rejected absentee ballots (RABs) from being reviewed at all. He wanted the evaluations as of election night to stand. Franken had to go to court to get the ballots reviewed to determine if they were improperly rejected absentee ballots (IRABs) or properly rejected absentee ballots (PRABs). All of the PRABs have been examined at least twice, and some have been reviewed three or more times to ensure they were properly rejected.
Now Normie wants all the PRABs reviewed AGAIN when he didn't want any RABs reviewed initially. He realizes that they're his only real hope.
It would be pretty funny if more were counted and Franken's lead increased as a result.