This Editor and Publisher article perpetuates the myth that ACORN is being wrongfully targeted by evil conservatives. E & P is perpetuating this shattered myth:

Leading up to the 2008 presidential campaign, ACORN was a target of allegations of voter fraud from the Republican Party and conservative news sources. Although the predicted voter fraud never materialized, the stories planted during the election season yielded a bountiful crop of misinformation. Now, in November 2009, a national survey revealed shocking public misperceptions about ACORN: more than half of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of ACORN, and 52% of Republicans, 18% of independents, and 9% of Democrats think ACORN stole the election for Obama.

While I don’t believe that President Obama would’ve lost the election if not for ACORN, it isn’t a myth that ACORN committed voter registration fraud. In fact, I’m betting that this article is a distraction from yesterday’s report. E & P knows that ACORN employees pled guilty to voter registration fraud in Seattle:

Three of seven defendants in the biggest voter-registration fraud scheme in Washington history have pleaded guilty and one has been sentenced, prosecutors said Monday.

The defendants were all temporary employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, when they allegedly filled out and submitted more than 1,800 fictitious voter-registration cards during a 2006 registration drive in King and Pierce counties.

E & P knows about ACORN, not ACORN employees, being indicted by Nevada’s Democratic Attorney General for “operating a fraud-infested voter registration drive in the state during the 2008 presidential campaign”:

ACORN illegally compensated workers to register voters based on a corporate mandated quota system, according to Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. Because canvassers were illegally required to meet quotas to keep their jobs, thousands of registrations with fake names and addresses were submitted throughout the state.

Notice that Nevada’s Attorney General accused ACORN the organization of illegally compensating workers “based on a corporate mandated quote system.” Nevada’s A.G. wouldn’t make that accusation without having proof of that, most likely in the form of people coming forward during the investigation or in the form of emails recovered during the execution of a search warrant or interoffice memos.

It isn’t a coincidence that E & P’s article showed up the day after Andrew Breitbart reported that San Diego ACORN’s office dumped a bunch of sensitive documents into a dumpster days after California A.G. Jerry Brown announced that he’d be investigating ACORN’s San Diego office.

Among the documents allegedly dumped by ACORN’s San Diego office were employees’ W-4 forms. Follow this link to view a blank W-4 form. Notice that a person’s social security number is one of the things that an employee must fill out. According to this article, W-4 forms are supposed to be kept for four years “after the tax due date or the actual date paid.” If any of the W-4’s that were dumped were for temps, then ACORN’s got alot of trouble with the IRS and others.

E & P then tries softpedalling the child prostitution charges:

The embarrassing videos were soon posted to the Internet, and in short order became a national story. Starting at the conservative Web site biggovernment.com, the videos quickly became the top story at Fox News and conservative talk radio, moved to CNN’s Lou Dobbs Show, then proved irresistible for the mainstream news media.

ACORN responded by firing the employees involved and initiating an internal review by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger. Washington responded to the incidents with outrage, with Congress quickly voting to rescind ACORN’s federal funding, primarily for homeownership counseling. Although ACORN received no funds from the IRS or the Census Bureau, both agencies also removed ACORN as “partners” in their efforts to help the working poor qualify for tax rebates and to encourage low-income households to fill out census forms.

That’s nice PR but it doesn’t mean a thing in light of the document dump prior to the California AG initiating an investigation into ACORN California. It means less when coupled with the ACORN organization using incentives and quotas, which is against Nevada law.

ACORN’s defense has always been that after they find out about the wrongdoing, they cooperate with the investigations. Average people don’t care about that. They’re just wondering why ACORN doesn’t establish policies that would eliminate the need to assist in so many investigations.

Despite everything that E & P wrote, the inescapable truth is that ACORN is corrupt to its core. It’s just that simple.

Technorati: ACORN, Registration Drive, Scandal, Investigations, Document Dump, Nevada, California, Payroll Records, Identity Theft, Corruption, Democrats

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Doug Grow’s post about a potential matchup of Rep. Erik Paulsen vs. State Sen. Terri Bonoff got me thinking about the 2010 election cycle.

First, let’s put in the context of there being a significantly different political dynamic at work in the 2010 cycle than what existed in 2008. Simply put, Sen. Bonoff might’ve lost her best opportunity to win the Third District seat.

According to Rasmussen’s Generic Ballot Question polling, Democrats currently trail Republicans by a 43%-38% margin, which is outside the margin of error. That means Bonoff, like Tarryl Clark, would be fighting against this year’s trend. It isn’t impossible to win in this climate but it’s more challenging than 2008 would’ve been.

It’s also more difficult to defeat an incumbent than it is to capture an open seat. If you factor in what I call the Obama Factor (Obama’s presence at the top of the ticket plus his great GOTV operation), it isn’t difficult to picture Sen. Bonoff having a better shot at winning last time.

The other thing that’s getting noticed is that Erik Paulsen is a solid conservative who is creating a strong bond with CD-3 GOP activists. Those activists will be a strong GOTV operation next year.

There’s still 15 months separating us from Election Day, 2010, which is several political lifetimes. Still, with Democrats spending money like there’s no tomorrow and with health care reform pulling Democrats down, coupled with the fact that Democrats will have alot of vulnerable freshman and sophomore seats to defend and Sen. Bonoff is fighting an uphill fight.

Technorati: DFL, Terri Bonoff, President Obama, Health Care, Polling, Generic Ballot, MNGOP, Erik Paulsen, Election 2010

This Strib article reads like a press release for another ‘moderate’ Republican group. Its thinking is as predictable as it is flawed. Here’s just one of its ad hominem attacks that’s as rooted in reality as Grimm’s Fairy Tales:

“Look for the Club for Growth to oppose Simmons…Castle and (Florida Gov. Charlie) Crist in favor of ideologues who can’t win,” the REP said. “Such political narcissism may make the purists feel good about themselves, but it is not a sound basis for building an electoral coalition that can win again in what is still a center-right country.”

First, it’s important to note that the GOP’s running of spineless moderates have contributed to blowouts the last 2 election cycles. It’s laughable to take their advice seriously, especially with that historical perspective. Second, it’s absurd to think that Charlie Crist is the GOP’s savior, especially considering Marco Rubio is a charismatic, eloquent true conservative whereas Crist might be to the left of Linc Chaffee.

There’s a line from the movie Roadhouse that should be applied to the Crist-Rubio matchup. Red, the auto parts store owner, tells Swayze’s character to “never marry an ugly woman. They take all your strength.” The application to politics is that we shouldn’t run candidates that people aren’t excited about.

During last year’s primary season, article after article spoke about the Democrats’ enthusiasm gap. Running a lefty like Crist will sap the activists’ enthusiasm quickly and thoroughly.

Let’s think of this, too. The energy provided through the tea parties was powerful. Those attending the tea parties are ready for revolution. To run a candidate like Charlie Crist is telling the activists “Start the revolution without me.” Gladly.

It’s informative to compare and contrast the 2004 election with the 2006 and 2008 election disasters. In 2004, Karl Rove made certain that the base had lots of things to be excited about. He made sure picking strict constructionist judges was a central theme of the campaign. Tax cuts were another central theme of the campaign, too. Volunteers showed up in droves. I recall reading articles that the Ohio GOP being so overstocked with volunteers that they sent their excess volunteers to Pennsylvania to maximize their efforts in that state.

We experienced volunteer shortages in 2006 and 2008, mostly because we ran away from the base of the party.

REP advocates new ideas based on well-established conservative principles, such as conservation of the nation’s natural resources, and urges the GOP to recall that Reagan accomodated a range of Republican thinking.

I won’t pay attention to that sentence because it’s 100% BS. Reagan was a believer in the big tent but saying that conservation was part of Reagan’s agenda is absurd. One of the first things Reagan did after the inauguration was to end the greencapping of oil wells. He dramatically increased domestic production, too.

The tone of the article had the feel of a press release from this obscure organization. That’s what you get from the Agenda Media these days. Unfortunately, it’s what we get from the NRSC, too.

Technorati: NRSC, Charlie Crist, RINO, Rob Simmons, Election 2006, Election 2008, President Bush, Election 2004, Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Since President Obama’s election last November, pundits have been writing the GOP’s obituaries on a weekly basis. This week’s obituary was written by Dick Polman, who stated thus:

Let us briefly sift the ashes. The party right now has no coherent message, aside from “Do Not Offend Rush Limbaugh.” Its messengers are basically conservatives who speak to the choir. It has virtually zilch appeal beyond its base, as evidenced by the ‘08 election and every subsequent poll; the party is alienating suburbanites, independents, Latinos (the fastest-growing cohort in the electorate), and people under age 30 (the voters who will dominate for the next half century).

Since the GOP “has virtually zilch appeal beyond its base”, perhaps Mr. Polman can explain why Republicans led Democrats in the generic ballot question this week. That’s after having gone several years of trailing Democrats on that question. How can the GOP lead in the generic ballot question if they’re losing ground on all these demographic groups? It’d be interesting to hear a coherent explanation on that.

It’s worth asking whether young people will continue preferring President Obama and Speaker Pelosi if they don’t change their spending habits. I’m betting that they won’t because young people understand that their standard of living drops each time interest on the debt sucks money that could’ve been lent to entrepreneurs who wanted to grow their businesses.

Salena Zito’s column takes a different perspective:

What he has left behind with his switch to the other team is everyone under the sun, as he gleefully dances on the supposed grave of the Republican Party after proclaiming its death by a thousand cuts.

“I think the reports of the death of the Republican Party are greatly exaggerated,” says Texas Tech political science professor Tim Nokken. “It’s been a rough couple of years for the GOP, but that doesn’t equate with death.”

So, no going the way of the Whigs, which is exactly what self-agonizing Democrats said about themselves after yet another defeat in the 2004 presidential and congressional election. “Many smart strategists were wondering if the Democratic Party was ever going to win a national election again,” says Democrat strategist Steve McMahon. Well into 2005, serious doubt existed that the 2006 midterms would be any better, he adds.

To understand what we need to do to regain majority party status, let’s ask these simple questions:

• Did the American people suddenly wake up in late 2005 & say “I’m sick of the government spending my money efficiently”?
• Did the American people suddenly wake up in late 2005 & say that they didn’t want their government doing everything necessary to prevent another terrorist attack?
• Did the American people suddenly wake up in late 2005 & say they weren’t being taxed enough?

I’nm betting that the American people don’t grow tired of being protected from terrorist attacks or having their money spent efficiently on America’s needs. Likewise, I’m positive that the American people, with a few exceptions, don’t think that they need a higher tax burden. But that’s just me.

We’d be wise to take some important points from Salena’s column about Michael Steele. Here’s one that’s especially worthwhile:

Democratic strategist Steve McMahon has worked with Dean for years and has known Steele since his days as a Maryland Republican committeeman. He says the new GOP chairman must adopt a 50-state program, as Dean did, to get his party back on track.

“His challenge is to recapture independents without pushing out the base,” he explained. The hardest part is pushing against the party’s nay-sayers who favor winning here and there rather than taking time to build for the future. “Steele has to remain focused,” McMahon said. “Do that, and the GOP will compete not just regionally but across the board again.”

Rebuild the Party started advocating the 50-state strategy right after the election. Instead of calling it the 50-state program, they’ve titled their approach the 435 district strategy:

By 2012, the Republican Party will field candidates in all 435 Congressional districts in America, from inner city Philadelphia to suburban Dallas, and our leaders must be held accountable for progress towards this goal. With an 80 plus vote margin separating Democrats from Republicans in the House, it’s time to widen the playing field, not narrow it. While our targeting has gotten narrower, honing in on a class of seats we feel entitled to because they lean Republican, Democrats have been stealing traditionally 60-40 Republican seats right and left. It’s time to return the favor.

What’s more, it won’t be good enough to run perfunctory races in safe seats. 2008 showed us that every seat, Republican or Democrat, is potentially a target. If you aren’t seriously challenged this time, chances are you’ll be challenged the next time, or the time after that. Incumbents who don’t prepare for this reality will find themselves scrambling to catch up when the inevitable happens. That means that our party needs to set a new standard that campaigns will be professional and fully staffed in each and every seat.

With few exceptions, every district should be considered a hotly contested district. Being competitive requires good messaging, good candidates and adequate funding. Being winners includes those things plus lots of hard work. The minute people start saying that they’re willing to run through walls to get good candidates elected is the minute the GOP will experience a rebound.

Here’s another Polman observation:

Fortunately, there are still some reality-based Republicans. Kristen Soltis, the research director at a top GOP polling firm, warned the other day that her party “is facing changing demographic forces that present a challenge to its long-term growth.” Translation: Unless the party wakes up and diversifies, it is toast.

It isn’t that we shouldn’t diversify. It’s that we should do it the right way. Doing things the right way is fairly simple: Be yourself. Make the most of each opportunity to tell people why limited government is in their best interest. Tell people why strict constructionist judges are the best guarantee that justice is served. Remind people that low taxes and fiscal restraint leaves ‘extra’ money in the pockets of families and entrepreneurs.

In other words, follow the Reagan model. Which brings me to my ’soapbox moment’: The people that think Reaganism is dead don’t understand Reaganite conservatism. As my friend Cindy, aka the Lady Logician, points out in this post, prioritizing things drove Reagan’s agenda:

President Reagan is said to have taken the following position on legislation. He supposedly said that if the legislation did not make the country safer, more prosperous or more free then it was not worthy of his support. THAT is what Republicans should be focusing on!

Those guiding principles are still appealing today because they’re eternal principles. The sooner the GOP understands eternal principles, the faster we’ll return to majority party status.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that Sen. McCain’s appeal to independents was when Sarah Palin joined the ticket and appealed first to the base. Until your base is energized, you can’t play on the other guys’ side of the field.

Technorati: Obituary, Michael Steele, RNC, Conservatism, Fiscal Restraint, GOP, President Obama, Howard Dean, Steve McMahon, Democrats, Pundits

Cross-posted at California Conservative

NRSC Chairman Sen. John Cornyn issued this update to the other GOP senators explaining where the election contest is at:

Dear Colleagues,

I write to update you on Norm Coleman’s election contest in Minnesota. Over the recess, there were conflicting media accounts as to both what is happening in the contest and what these events mean for Norm’s case. This brief memorandum is meant to clarify any confusion, and to make clear that the bottom line has not changed: if the Minnesota Court fulfills its statutory obligation to certify the candidate with the highest number of legally cast ballots, we are confident that Norm Coleman will be declared the winner.

First, the number of unopened ballots that have never been counted in this race far exceeds the current 225 vote difference between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Approximately 3,500 rejected absentee ballots remain before the three-judge Minnesota Contest Court.

Second, original/duplicate ballots that were double counted during the recount stage heavily favor Al Franken; it’s estimated by over 100 votes. Norm’s team has provided direct testimony by Minnesota elections officials that votes were counted twice, and the Minnesota Court has yet to remove the double counted ballots from the recount total.

Third, multiple extraneous ballot issues remain unresolved by the Minnesota Court. For example, election night vote totals were used in the recount where ballots favoring Franken were “lost” (there’s no evidence they ever existed), but election night totals were not when ballots favoring Franken were “found” after election night.

Finally, the Minnesota Court has now made clear that the number of illegal votes that are currently included in the vote count exceed the margin of Al Franken’s “lead” by hundreds if not thousands. It seems straight common sense that illegal votes cannot be included in a final certified vote total. Yet last week’s Friday the 13th ruling by the 3 judge creates exactly that possibility:

The Minnesota Contest Court ruled that 12 categories of ballots were “illegal” under Minnesota law. The problem is that the three judges themselves have previously allowed ballots they now call illegal to be counted. Additionally, this ruling makes thousands of ballots already included in the election night total illegal.

Specifically, the judges’ order contradicts their own ruling three days earlier on seven (Franken weighted) ballots that allowed those ballots to be included in the count. Further, this order renders illegal nearly 100 of the 933 (Franken weighted) ballots counted by the Minnesota Canvassing Board during the recount and contradicts a stipulation the Board signed on February 3 that all 933 ballots were legally and properly counted. The Court is refusing to address these blatant inconsistencies despite the fact that they are charged with certifying the number of “legally cast ballots” in this race, a charge that, by their own definition, they are no longer able to keep.

As a former Texas Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice, I find the legal quagmire created by the Friday the 13th ruling, and the Minnesota Court’s apparent refusal to address it, particularly troubling. Such widespread inconsistency not only creates state and federal constitutional problems, but saps voters’ faith and confidence in the integrity of our election process. In order for the voters of Minnesota, and the members of this body, to have confidence in this contest’s outcome the process in Minnesota must be uniform and it must be fair.

I know that you join me in my concern, and support Norm’s fight.

Something jumped out at me in this memo. Here’s what jumped off the page at me:

Finally, the Minnesota Court has now made clear that the number of illegal votes that are currently included in the vote count exceed the margin of Al Franken’s “lead” by hundreds if not thousands.

The February 13th ruling creates a predicament for the courts because they didn’t officially take their previous ruling off the books. That means that hundreds of votes that were counted for Franken because of one court ruling should now be removed by virtue of the latest court ruling.

Until now, I’ve resisted making a prediction because I thought things were too close to call. While I realize that Mr. Franken currently has the lead, it’s becoming apparent that that lead is the result of cherrypicking ballots from Franken-friendly precincts. Let’s review some important facts.

• The votes from the Franken-friendliest precincts have been added in already.
• The votes from the most pro-Coleman precincts haven’t been counted.
• There are approximately 3,500 votes from these Coleman-friendly districts. That’s more than enough to overtake Franken.
• Election officials have testified that some votes have been double counted.
• These double-counted votes have been from Franken-friendly precincts.
• If the three-judge panel finds this testimony credible, which I think they will, more ballots will be subtracted from Franken’s vote totals than from Sen. Coleman’s totals.

As a result of this information, I’m now willing to predict Sen. Coleman’s return to the Senate.

Technorati: Recount, Norm Coleman, Al Franken, Election Contest, Testimony, Double-Counting, Absentee Ballots, Courts, John Cornyn, NRSC, Election 2008

What you are about to read is an LFR exclusive. When Americans with integrity read this, they will be outraged.

What you are about to read is how one of the attorneys working for the Franken campaign tried to eliminate a legally cast absentee ballot because it was a vote for Sen. Coleman. What you are about to read is a firsthand report from the man who witnessed this play out right in front of him. Sit down and read Chris Tiedeman’s account of an eventful episode in the recount process. Just be prepared to get very, very angry.

I was a volunteer attorney for the Coleman campaign during the recount phase of the post election attempt to figure out exactly who won the US Senate Race in 2008. I helped recruit local MN attorneys in counties around the state, I helped examine ballots accepted on Election Day during the recount, and for the sake of this story, I assisted in reviewing some of the rejected absentee ballots at the end of the recount process.

For much of New Year’s Eve and the day before, I spent my time in Anoka and then Dakota County. In Anoka County, because there was a group of potentially wrongfully rejected absentees that the Franken Campaign did not want reviewed, the process broke down entirely and no ballots were examined from either Anoka or Isanti counties at that time.

I spent the rest of the next two days in Hastings working with Carver, Scott, Goodhue and finally Dakota County. The purpose was to look at rejected absentee ballots that the counties felt were either wrongfully rejected by the counties themselves, or at least were worthy of scrutiny by the campaigns to determine whether the ballots were wrongfully rejected.

Dakota County had nearly 200 ballots for the two campaigns to review together (compared to 4 brought by Carver). Dakota County officials pulled the ballots together into categories; meaning that within each category, presumably each of the ballots should be treated the same by the two campaigns. In other words, if one ballot in a category was deemed wrongly rejected by the two campaigns, it was likely that the remainder in the same category were also wrongly rejected.

Towards the end of the second day, the county officials and the two campaigns were examining a category that the county officials said were wrongly rejected because of a legitimate error by a county elections official. If my memory serves me, there were approximately 15 or so ballots in that category. They were ballots where the voter was registered to vote, and the county official mailed an envelope with the ballot that should have been sent to a non-registered voter. Apparently there are two distinctly identifiable envelopes mailed to voters depending on whether they are already registered or need to register when casting their ballot.

Towards the end of that category, I saw my fiancé Sara’s name on the list. I tried, at first, to examine the ballots leading up to hers with my best poker face in hopes that we’d examine her ballot as we’d examined the others in the category, and not discuss it based on who she was as an identifiable voter.

I had no such luck.

When we came to examine Sara’s ballot, the Franken attorney (who I had been working with for two days) recognized my name as a witness to her absentee ballot.

As I wrote above, we were looking at a category of ballots that the county and both campaigns agreed were wrongly rejected as a result of an error made by a county worker, not the voter.

I recall the smug look, and devious grin on the face of the Franken attorney as looked at my witness signature on the ballot envelope. I openly admitted then that the ballot was my fiancé’s, and that I had served as a witness for her so she could cast her ballot absentee. She was scheduled to be in California on business on Election Day.

Among the other reasons an absentee ballot can be rejected is when the signature on the request for the absentee ballot and the signature on the absentee ballot submission don’t match. For the obvious reason of protecting voters against having their ballot cast absentee by someone other than themselves, this reason for rejection makes sense and is something I fully support.

Knowing specifically that I (a Coleman attorney) was a witness to her ballot, and suspecting that her ballot was cast for Coleman, the Franken Attorney said he believed that the signatures on her absentee ballot did not match the signature on her absentee ballot request, and that it was his position (the position of the Franken campaign) that her ballot should not be included in the recount.

The Franken lawyers rejected her ballot with that same smug grin, which caused the county staff (head of elections and the county attorney) to roll their eyes in disgust. It was clear that the signatures did match, but the courts gave the two campaigns absolute veto power. A “signature mismatch” provided the most “grey area” and creative interpretation for lawyers like those Franken Lawyers who vetoed my fiancé’s vote to prevent an otherwise wrongly rejected absentee ballot from being counted by the canvassing board.

The Franken line, for about the first third of this process, was that “every vote should be counted.” And if that is their sentiment, I agree. Every legally cast vote should be counted. And no ballot should be counted more than once.

After all, one of our most cherished rights is the right to vote.

Franken’s campaign took that right away from my fiancé because they could identify that a supporter of Senator Coleman witnessed her ballot.

The fact that Al Franken’s campaign was willing to disenfranchise a specific voter (any specific voter) for raw politics should give every voter, regardless of party, reason to be outraged.

It is certainly reason for people, regardless of party, to support seeing this process through to the end.

Mr. Franken said all the right things in public. “Count every vote” sounds noble. In this instance, however, Chris Tiedeman can state without hesitation that the Franken campaign’s attorney tried to disenfranchise his fiance Sara’s vote because he’s the eyewitness.

Fortunately, the story won’t end there. Last week, Hennepin County Judge Denise Reilly made this declaration about rejected absentee ballots:

“The panel is going to make sure that every legally cast and wrongfully rejected ballot is opened and counted,” Reilly said in court today.

This means that the ballot that the Franken campaign tossed out will be counted because it was improperly rejected.

Let’s summarize things here because a number of important points must be made:

• Chris Tiedeman’s fiance Sara filled everything out properly.
• Chris witnessed the fact that Sara filled out the absentee ballot properly.
• When Sara put the ballot in the envelope, she signed her name on the envelope according to Minnesota election law.
• After Sara signed the envelope, Chris signed the envelope, thereby testifying to the fact that the ballot was properly filled out in his presence.
• Despite the fact that the ballot was properly filled out, one of Al Franken’s attorneys rejected it, with the likely reason that Franken’s attorney didn’t want to count a vote for Sen. Coleman.

Because of this incident, we have clear proof that Team Franken’s mantra of “Count every vote” is hollow and meaningless. That mantra certainly isn’t a conviction. It’s more likely that their mantra was done for PR purposes. This is why we need the election contest go forward.

Without Judge Denise Reilly’s ruling, the Franken campaign might have gotten away with disenfranchising a legal voter. It isn’t a stretch to think that the Franken campaign tried this because they didn’t want to count a vote for Sen. Coleman.

There are genuine heroes in this story, starting with Chris Tiedeman and his fiance Sara. Sara played by the rules. She took her voting responsibility seriously. She cast her vote properly.

Chris knows this because he witnessed Sara fill out the ballot and put it in the envelope, at which time Chris signed it, in essence testifying to the fct that it was properly cast.

The other hero in this is Judge Denise Reilly for ruling that every properly cast ballot would be counted. That’s the only way of ensuring the integrity of close elections.

Without heroes like Judge Reilly, Chris Tiedeman and his fiance Sara, we wouldn’t have known what the Franken campaign did.

Technorati: Recount, Absentee Ballots, Fifth Pile, Al Franken, Attorneys, Corruption, Denise Reilly, Election Contest, Judiciary, Election 2008, Disenfranchisement

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Sen. Coleman took time last week to tape an interview with KSTP’s Tom Hauser. That taped interview ran yesterday. Here’s the video of the interview:

Here’s the transcript of the interview:

TOM HAUSER: Welcome back. As you know, the 2008 senate race continues to dominate the headlines, and joining me now, one of the men responsible for that, Senator Norm Coleman. Now you’re in kind of this limbo. Senator is a title you will have even if you were just retiring and for the rest of your life.

SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: But I’m not being paid by the United States Senate.

TOM HAUSER: But you are still entitled to the title senator, but it has to be strange being in this limbo, you see the action going on in Washington and you’re not part of it.

SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: I feel like in a Kafka novel or something like that, the race that never ends. I have stayed in contact with my colleagues; I have been in touch with folks talking about the stimulus. I have had to close up my office, but assuming that this thing gets done, at some point you will have to move quickly to provide citizen service. So I am spending some time to try to ensure that when this is over that we can get moving as quickly as possible, whoever the winner is, I believe I will win when all votes are counted. But I do think that it is important to get moving very quickly and I am certainly doing everything in my power to be able to do that when this recount is concluded.

TOM HAUSER: Now in the second week of this recount trial, you did have some success in court. The judges say they will review up to 4,800 ballots you would like to be reviewed, and possibly included, a few missing ballots have turned up here and there, some of which favor you. Still, despite that, isn’t it still a daunting task to try to overturn a 225 vote margin?

SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: Not really. Every single election official who has come before the panel has said that there are valid votes that haven’t been counted. We opened up, the canvassing board opened up 953 ballots from predominantly Democrat areas. We went back and looked at the nature of those ballots; and said you have over 4,000 similar kinds of ballots in the rest of the state, so open them, and count, figure out, make sure that nobody’s ballot is counted twice, the double counting of some ballots and then you will have a winner. And so there’s no question, I don’t think anyone disagrees that it is not going to be 225 votes that is going to separate whoever wins this race. That is an artificial number. It is down somewhere from 223 even as we speak because they found some Coleman votes that weren’t counted. But the bottom line is you have thousands of absentee ballots that have not been counted and so who the winner is, we don’t know at this point, Tom. But it is important for Minnesotans that we figure out who won by making sure that every validly cast vote is counted and that no vote is counted more than once.

TOM HAUSER: Now those 4,800 that your campaign is kind of focused on, it appears that those largely come from Coleman-friendly territory, and now Franken is looking for ballots from Franken-friendly territory, so if you both do that, is it going to be somewhat of a wash and getting back to the 225 vote margin.

SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: Well, firstly, it shouldn’t be cherry picking, it really should be by category. And you look at the 953 that were opened, the reality Tom is that the first group of ballots came principally from Ramsey, Hennepin, St. Louis Counties; they’ve been counted, those heavily Democratic areas. The ones that haven’t been counted come from areas other than that. And as a result they are predominantly Republican, there’s no question about that. Bottom line, let’s count every validly cast vote. Figure out who the winner is, if it’s me I go back to work, if it’s Al Franken, he becomes a Senator. I think Minnesotans deserve to get it right, I think we need to get it right. We’re apparently on the course to make that happen.

TOM HAUSER: Now again, by the time we taped this show late Friday afternoon, we did not have the Supreme Court decision yet in Al Franken’s attempt to get seated immediately, provisionally until the recount trial is over. I know you are opposed to that motion obviously –

SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: It’s not just me being opposed, the law is very clear, in fact Tom, if I was to go out on a limb, we could presume that is not going to happen.

TOM HAUSER: Alright, good. You predicted it. We will find out if you are right.

SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: The law is very, very clear. Minnesota law says you cannot certify a winner until the contested case is concluded. Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Senate Democratic leadership are not going to seat the next senator from Minnesota. And so when we make sure every validly cast vote is counted, no votes double counted, we will have a winner, they will be certified, and that is the person who will serve as the United States Senator.

The first thing that came through for me was that Sen. Coleman is accessible. That’s a stark contrast to Mr. Franken, who declared victory a month ago, then left for the sunny climate of Florida.

SIDENOTE: Franken says that he’s getting daily updates on the issues from DC Democrats, which I believe. What’s disconcerting about his vacationing in Florida, though, is that he isn’t staying in touch with Minnesotans.

The contrast couldn’t be more stark.

The second thing that’s apparent to me is that Sen. Coleman is the definition of a statesman. Yes, he wants to expects to win, but he also knows that the laws have to be followed for elections to have integrity. That’s another stark contrast to Mr. Franken, who wants the Minnesota Supreme Court to rule that he’s Minnesota’s senate, which would essentially end the election contest trial.

While Sen. Coleman is the embodiment of statesmanship, Mr. Franken is the embodiment of an ill-tempered petty tyrant who carries alot of hate inside him.

Finally, it’s important to note that Sen. Coleman laid out his case for why he thinks he’ll win and why the courts must intervene to eliminate the mistakes and injustices involved in the recount. Sen. Coleman put together a flawless, compelling logical argument.

That’s the final stark contrast between Sen. Coleman and Mr. Franken. Mr. Franken hasn’t tried enunciating a coherent, compelling rationale for his ’stop the recount’ lawsuits.

Mr. Franken can’t enunciate a coherent, compelling rationale for his lawsuits because there isn’t a coherent, compelling rationale for his lawsuits.

PS- I’ve attended a debate that Tom Hauser moderated & I watch At Issue each week. In my opinion, Mr. Hauser is the best interviewer in the Twin Cities political press corps.

Technorati: At Issue, Tom Hauser, Talk Show, Norm Coleman, Statesman, Republican, Recount, Election Law, Al Franken, Lawsuits, Temper Tantrums, Florida Vacation, Election 2008

The PiPress’s Jason Hoppin is reporting that new testimony in the Coleman-Franken election contest has added new drama and evidence to the contest:

Perry Mason, meet Rachel Smith.

Smith, the top elections official in Anoka County, dropped a minor bombshell Thursday in the courtroom where a lawsuit over Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race was being heard. She testified that the county has found, within the prior 24 hours, a dozen or more ballots that were never counted in the statewide recount that ended last month.

While the number is not enough to overcome Democrat Al Franken’s 225-vote lead over former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, it suggests there might be other uncounted ballots in other counties. Only a handful of elections officials have testified in the recount trial so far.

The news came just hours after Franken argued before the state Supreme Court that an election certificate should be issued allowing him to take his seat in Washington, D.C. Coleman, who attended the hearing, said the development was a sign his court challenge to overcome Franken’s lead has a chance.

A simple question must be asked to add perspective to Franken’s latest lawsuit: Has any election official anywhere in the U.S. ever issued an election certificate certifying a winner if all the votes hadn’t been counted?

Earlier this week, Hennepin County Judge Denise Reilly made this statement following the court’s ruling that 4,800 previously rejected absentee ballots would be counted:

“The panel is going to make sure that every legally cast and wrongfully rejected ballot is opened and counted,” Reilly said in court today.

It’s now a finding of fact that some votes haven’t been counted. Until the last one is counted, the Supreme Court should rule that this election isn’t over, that it’s too close to call and that the process will prevail.

The discovery includes:

• Three military ballots for Coleman from a Spring Lake Park precinct that were originally duplicated and misplaced before the recount. They were found in a large envelope containing discarded absentee-ballot return envelopes.
• Six absentee ballots that were found inside their original return envelopes and have never been counted.
• Several other ballots that were rejected for one reason or another, but that the county now says should be reconsidered.

“The finding of the ballots is just another demonstration of how illusory that count is,” said Ben Ginsberg, an attorney for Coleman.

Until the courts rule that every ballot properly cast has been counted, and that they’ve been counted properly, a winner can’t be certified. To do anything but certifying that every properly cast ballot has been counted properly would be a great injustice to the candidates and, more importantly, to Minnesota voters. That’s unacceptable.

That Al Franken is doing everything possible to short-circuit that process is an indication of Mr. Franken’s win-at-all-cost-even-if-it-means-disenfranchising-voters attitude. It tells us that he’s dishonest and a dirtbag. His behavior has been, and always will be, disgraceful.

Technorati: Recount, Al Franken, Disenfranchised Voters, Ethics, Lawsuits, Democrats, Norm Coleman, Rejected Ballots, Absentee Ballots, Count Every Vote, Election 2008

Esme Murphy’s blog highlights the fact that Al Franken has been wintering in Florida since he declared victory a month ago today. Here’s what Ms. Murphy wrote about ‘Out-Of-Touch Al’:

I want to know, Al, what you are thinking. Norm Coleman has been around attending the trial, giving his opinions on anything people have asked him. I know because Coleman has gotten quite a bit of flak over an interview he did with me on Sunday. But at least he is out there, and I do think at this critical time people want to hear from the person who could be our next senator.

After the Canvassing Board, I asked one of Franken’s loyal staffers if he could appear that Sunday on WCCO Sunday morning for a live interview. The staffer replied, “I think we are going to be putting Al back in the box for now.” (I kid you not.) And so I plead with the Franken staff, FREE AL!

If people needed proof that Mr. Franken was a mostly disinterested Minnesota bystander, this post provides it. Instead of holding townhall meetings and doing in person interviews and watching the court proceedings, ‘Out-Of-Touch Al’ has hidden in Florida.

As appalling as that is, it’s more appalling to hear a Franken staffer say that “I think we are going to be putting Al back in the box for now.”

The contrast couldn’t be more stark. Norm Coleman is the embodiment of a public servant who listens to the people’s needs and is always accessible. At his campaign stops, Sen. Coleman would tell the story about a woman attending a politician’s funeral. A reporter asked the woman if she knew the politician. The lady said that she didn’t but that “he knew me.” Sen. Coleman said that he wanted people to feel like he knew them because he shared their values and their concerns.

It appears as though Mr. Franken doesn’t share that passion to know Minnesota’s people nor share in their concerns. Mr. Franken hasn’t convinced me that he’s anything more than an angry political opportunist.

Technorati: Al Franken, Florida, Election Contest, Canvassing Board, Norm Coleman, Public Servant, Interviews, Esme Murphy

Yesterday was an event-filled day for the recount story. Here’s what Rachel Stassen-Berger wrote about yesterday’s events:

Settle in. The U.S. Senate election trial is going to take a while.

This morning, Hennepin County Judge Denise Reilly, one of the three judges hearing the Norm Coleman’s case to overturn Al Franken’s 225-vote lead, said that the judicial tribunal wants to count many more ballot into the race’s tally.

“The panel is going to make sure that every legally cast and wrongfully rejected ballot is opened and counted,” Reilly said in court today.

The judge’s statement was the first time anyone in the panel confirmed that indeed the panel wants more ballots included. It is still unclear how many ballots may be counted into the race.

Judge Reilly’s comments are sure to put some extra lift into the Coleman campaign’s step, especially following on the heels of the ruling that says 4,800 improperly rejected absentee ballots would get counted.

It appears as though Mr. Franken’s strategy was to get ahead, then shut the recount down. If that was their strategy, it’s time for them to move onto Plan B, if such a plan exists.

In other news from yesterday, newly-elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele issued this statement:

“I proudly stand in support of Senator Norm Coleman’s pursuit to see that Minnesota’s voters are enfranchised by having their ballots counted. If voters do not have confidence in elections, then they will not have confidence in their elected leaders. That is why the judges’ review of thousands of additional ballots in Minnesota is critical to the democratic process. The Republican National Committee remains committed to Norm Coleman’s campaign and confident that when the recount contest is complete, he will be re-elected to the U.S. Senate.”

This has to be a major boost to the Coleman campaign’s morale. They now have an additional eloquent advocate setting the record straight on what’s happening in Minnesota. Michael Steele telling the American public that nonpartisan judges are making rulings based on Minnesota election law lets them know that the recount has the sufficient amount of checks and balances.

They now know that the judges’ rulings prove that Sen. Coleman’s election contest has merit. Including 4,800 previously unopened and uncounted absentee ballots says that there’ve been a number of serious mistakes made that need correcting.

This morning, The Hill Magazine’s Aaron Blake is reporting that it isn’t likely that Al Franken will get seated:

Al Franken’s request to be seated provisionally in Minnesota’s vacant Senate seat looks to be in trouble.

In a hearing before the Minnesota Supreme Court held Thursday morning, Franken lawyer Marc Elias made the case that the Democrat should be seated, even as the seat’s previous occupant, Republican Norm Coleman, contests his 225-vote loss to Franken.

The justices didn’t immediately rule, but Elias’s arguments were met with much skepticism.

Minnesota law states that a candidate cannot receive a certificate of election while the result is being contested. Without that certificate, the Senate has declined to seat Franken.

Franken’s lawyers argued that federal law, which requires a state be represented by two senators, trumps state law. The seat has been vacant for about a month now.

“The Senate decides who sits. However, the state of Minnesota is not free to decide it is not going to participate in a federally mandated timetable,” Elias said. “The nation’s business is being conducted as we speak in the United States Senate,” and Minnesota has failed to meet its obligation.

The justices expressed concern that any provisional status wouldn’t need to be recognized by the U.S. Senate and peppered Elias with questions questioning his legal reasoning.

the provisional seating argument is nothing more than Mr. Franken’s ploy to unjustly appear senatorial. Based on Mr. Blake’s reporting, it’s apparent that the judges weren’t impressed with Mr. Elias’s arguments.

Particularly egregious is Mr. Elias’s statement that “The Senate decides who sits. However, the state of Minnesota is not free to decide it is not going to participate in a federally mandated timetable.” I’d be particularly interested in finding when a “federally mandated timetable” was established. Absent proof of a “federally mandated timetable”, the judges have little choice but to ignore that argument.

Furthermore, it’s apparent that the Senate doesn’t decide who’s seated. When then-Gov. Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the Senate, Harry Reid blustered about how Burris wouldn’t be seated. We all know how that turned out.

Coleman attorney James Langdon argued with Elias’ claims of a federal timetable:

Coleman lawyer James Langdon said precedents cited by Franken’s lawyers come from states with far less precise election statutes than Minnesota has.

“There is no federally mandated deadline here,” Langdon said. “Minnesota has made a determination that when it comes to the question of who has won, it will take the time to make absolutely sure that it’s right.”

The Franken campaign’s consistent contention has been that Minnesota laws take a back seat in terms of election law. Team Franken’s attorneys have tried arguing that certifying a winner happens at a time of their choosing. The courts have consistently seen it differently, saying that certifying a winner won’t happen until all properly cast ballots have been counted one time only.

This part really demolishes Team Franken’s campaign:

The state’s solicitor general, Al Gilbert (D), appeared before the court and backed up Coleman’s case.

Finally, this is a flimsy argument:

Elias also noted that the fate of President Obama’s stimulus package could be decided by one vote in the Senate.

Theoretically speaking, political considerations should be irrelevant to a judicial ruling. Judicial rulings should be based on codified law.

Technorati: Recount, Al Franken, Marc Elias, Norm Coleman, James Langdon, Certification, Election Contest, Judiciary, States Rights