Wednesday, January 07, 2009

The Challenge Phase

It's on now. My guess is this -- when all is said and done, Norm Coleman will still end up losing his seat in the Senate to Al Franken. The margin will narrow somewhat, but he won't be able to make up the difference.

So why do it? Why delay what is likely to be the inevitable? Two closely related reasons.

As Justice Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. While the public counting of the votes by the canvassing board was transparent, the machinations that led to the counting were not. There are reports that Mark Ritchie, whom I have suspected from the outset, was in contact with the Franken campaign. Scott Johnson at Powerline, in an excellent summation of the state of play, says the following:

Secretary of State Ritchie is another story. While he displayed no visible partisanship in his capacity as chairman of the Board of Canvassers, his work as Secretary of State appears to have proceeded in close collaboration with the Franken campaign. We wrote about Ritchie's collaboration with Franken in "Minnesota's recount goes south."

Given his role as chairman of the Board of Canvassers, I believe this collaboration to be inappropriate and improper. We have filed a freedom-of-information request with the Secretary of State's office regarding communications with the Franken campaign. So far as I know, we seem to be alone in raising concerns about Ritchie's coordination with the Franken campaign. One way or another, the response to our freedom-of-information request should be interesting.

If this turns out to be true, it probably won't hurt Franken, but it will hurt Ritchie. And if the allegations turn out to be true, it should. People deserve to know the truth, one way or another. If Ritchie acted properly, those of us who have criticized his role will need to apologize. But we need to know the truth first.

The second reason this challenge process needs to go forward is this: because it was so convoluted and because it is becoming increasingly evident that the victory belongs to Franken's legal team more than anyone else, it demonstrates that the process we have in Minnesota is flawed. It is possible that we may never have another statewide election that is this close, but if we do, it would be far better to have a runoff election. While it is clear that Dean Barkley took votes from both camps, I continue to suspect that he hurt Coleman more. With Barkley removed from the equation in a runoff, the electorate would have had the opportunity to choose afresh. Had there been a runoff in place and Franken had prevailed, conservatives would be mad, but they would accept the results. Chances are pretty good that the prize now is a poisoned chalice.

Bottom line -- as much as I despise Al Franken, there's an exceptionally strong chance that a plurality of Minnesotans have sent him to the Senate. If that's the case, we have to accept it. But people need to know exactly how the process has played out. Once they do know, it won't change the results. But it will provide valuable information that will certainly be taken into account when the Minneosta electorate votes in the future.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Personally, I'd like to see the challenge process stretched out to, say, six years. I really don't want either Franken or Coleman casting votes on my behalf, and every day the seat sits empty - just as any day the legisltature isn't in session - is a better day for Minnesotans.

Mr. D said...

Yeah, I'm starting to feel that way too, NW. While we're at it, can we have Mark Kennedy file a challenge and stop A-Klo from voting, too?

Bike Bubba said...

I don't think anyone on the right is going to need to issue an apology to Mr. Ritchie. When he simply accepts precinct vote totals that exceed the number of voters recorded, he says what he's all about loud and clear. Any apology would be about getting specific details wrong, not on the core issue of Ritchie not doing his job.

agreed on the glory of gridlock, of course

Anonymous said...

Que sera, sera.

What really irks me at this point is Franken's attorney throwing out the 'will of the people' line.

Sorry bozo, but if you take away Franken's votes from people who suffered from Bush/Coleman Derangement Syndrome, it probably boils down to the will of about 12 people that will be realized.

Anonymous said...

In some states (Georgia and Louisiana perhaps more)they have a run off election when a candidate doesn't achieve 50% of the vote. The contest is between the top 2. That sure seems like a better idea than all of the shenanigans that have transpired here.

Brad Carlson said...

That sure seems like a better idea than all of the shenanigans that have transpired here.

I know Strib columnist Lori Sturdevant is all for IRV becuase she believes it will result in more Democrats getting elected.

Mr. D said...

Excellent point, Brad. And what has happened here is exactly why IRV is such a terrible idea. If people can't figure out how to fill out a ballot as it is, let's add weighting (and game theory) to it and see what happens. And let's give the harried election judges something else to figure out.

Right Hook said...

I think the chances are better that a plurality of Minnesotans voted to send Norm Coleman to the Senate and a partisan majority of Minnesota election officials have arranged to send Al Franken. Unfortunately, the choice of the people will be trumped by that of our corrupt and partisan election officials.

NW is right on. We would be better off with an empty seat than having it occupied by either of these sorry excuses for a candidate. Unfortuanetly this is not an option.

If there is any significant negative blowback to the DFL concerning the process watch for them to propose their "instant runoff" scam as a fix for future close elections rather than advocate legitimate run-off elections which would be much harder to manipulate.

It's not going to happen, but the proper outcome of the court challenge would be to rule that the entire recount process has been irreversably contaminated and order a run-off election. As it now stands neither candidate can be declared the winner without a permanent taint to their reputation and to our election process. It would be expensive, but hopefully in the next election the voters will affix the blame squarely on the DFL's botched attempt to steal an election and take corrective action at the ballot box in numbers too large to be overturned by post election shenanigans.

Anonymous said...

If ever our state experienced a greater embarrassment than sending SENATOR Al Franken to Washington, I cannot imagine what it might be.

And whatever 2nd place is; it is not close.