Posted: 06/02/09 04:18
by Dave Mindeman
Norm Coleman's legal case seems to be summed up in this question from Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Dietzen:
"We have a finding [from the three-judge election contest panel] that there is no evidence of fraud or misconduct … It seems to me that you have to show that that finding was clearly erroneous, and I'm wondering what that evidence is."
Sometimes you just have to prove it.
Coleman's lawyers have tried to say it in as many ways as they can, "the election wasn't fair", "there is an equal protection problem", "counting your vote depended upon where you live". They stated it over and over; but Justice Dietzen cut to the chase once more:
"I've never seen an offer of proof like this … It doesn't identify witnesses. It doesn't identify what they're going to say … Why is this offer of proof not inadequate? … We don't have admissible evidence that can be considered by this court in determining whether you've met your burden."
It is a bit of a mystery. Coleman's lawyers were given an open ended opportunity to bring in ballots that proved their case. They could have tied up the court contest for longer periods of time with thousands of ballots that could be examined to show what they were claiming. But they didn't. They only offered samples.... a sprinkling of ballots that were supposed to lead to "broad assumptions".
Why didn't they?
Of course, I have a theory.
It's because that type of evidence was never there. Coleman's case has talked about 4,000 absentee ballots that he is fighting to have counted. The lawyers say they have no idea how those people voted -- they are just fighting to enfranchise their right to have their ballot counted.
But, it should be noted that these 4,000 are among several other thousands that were rejected for cause. For statutory reasons. Granted, a certain number of similar ballots with similar imperfections were mistakenly counted during the election process. However, they probably didn't number in the thousands -- more likely a few hundred.
Some of the ballots that were improperly rejected were already found during the court contest. They were allowed by the 3 judge panel and they were counted.
But the remaining rejected ballots were still invalid ballots according to Minnesota law. Coleman's lawyers knew that going ballot by ballot, they could not prove widespread problems. These ballots would show the same qualification problems that caused election judges to reject them in the first place -- after several examinations.
The evidence they sought was not there.
In addition, if the Coleman lawyers had brought in those 4,000 ballots for scrutiny, there is little doubt that the Franken lawyers would have brought to the court's attention the other problem with Coleman's enfranchisement issue.
His ballots were cherrypicked to enhance the possibility of being a Coleman vote. They, of course, deny this; but the Pioneer Press examined the origins of those ballots back in February....and the conclusion was;
Of the 4,739 ballots Coleman wants the court to consider, 3,015 come from areas that voted for him over Franken in the Nov. 4 election. About a third of the ballots are from areas that gave Coleman more than 55 percent of their votes.
Using those ballots as evidence with full scrutiny would lead to obvious questions of why these and not others. And, during this court case, it has been consistent. The wider the universe of ballots counted, the better for Al Franken's vote totals.
Coleman's evidence has never been there. His attorneys had hoped to argue on generalities and avoid specifics.
But the funny thing about judges of any persuasion. They always get nitpicky about one question --"where's the proof?".
