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.