GOP activists never bought into the notion that Minnesota SecState Mark Ritchie wasn’t a hyperpartisan political hack. Thanks to this MSNBC video, we now have verifiable proof that Mr. Ritchie is a hyperpartisan political hack:

Cullen Sheehan quickly responded with this statement:

“When the Coleman campaign raises legitimate ballot security concerns, over instances such as 32 new ballots appearing in the car of a Minneapolis city official, Mr. Ritchie goes on a national media campaign characterizing our actions as political,” Sheehan said in a statement.

“His accusation today that our campaign intends to win ‘at any price’ is offensive, demands an apology and simply underscores our concerns about his ability to act as an unbiased official in this recount. His statement is not reflective of the objective, non-partisan standards Minnesotans expect and deserve, and which Mr. Ritchie as Secretary of State is sworn to uphold. And we are concerned about the pattern we are seeing.”

Mark Ritchie’s long history of ultraliberal activism alone makes his objectivity suspect. His statement that Sen. Coleman’s only concern was winning at all costs is just additional proof that he lacks objectivity.

Thus far, Minnesotans haven’t seen the type of transparency needed. They haven’t seen anything remotely resembling uniformity of procedures in securing the ballots. Unfortunately, we’ve seen altogether too much in terms of magically appearing ballots, all of which, miraculously, are going to Al Franken.

When the next Minnesota Legislative session opens, I hope that the House GOP caucus pushes hard to pass legislation that would mandate uniformity in handling ballots and that mandates total transparency.

The federal government mandates that each city develops a plan for handling various homeland security-related issues. Shouldn’t it be a high priority for cities to develop and maintain a ballot chain of custody plan? It’s painfully obvious that this type of plan doesn’t currently exist in Minnesota.

Finally, as far as I can tell, Mark Ritchie hasn’t lifted a finger to see if voters registered in Minnesota are registered elsewhere, too. Why hasn’t he verified the integrity of Minnesota’s voter registration lists? Shouldn’t that be a priority with Mr. Ritchie?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Nonpartisan Mark Ritchie?”

  • eric zaetsch says:

    Hello, Gary. You and others can help me on this. My ballot had in the upper right corner a pair of initials, and I presume that all ballots handed out at that precinct polling place had that, and one set was a GOP person and the other was a DFL person, or substitute on rare occasion for either, an IP person.

    Then, any ballot not so marked is invalid. And they count people showing up, and ballots, and the two should equal the other. Give or take one or two, some idiot misplaces a ballot or something.

    So only legitimate ballots are involved, and with black marking pens, it is hard to alter one.

    It could be better, but what about those sites where they use only electronic voting, without any paper trail.

    The strongest paper-trail advocate in Congress is Rush Holt of NJ. The LWV have pushed paper trail consistently.

    There’s always purple thumb dye to keep folks from voting early and often.

    And you do not exclude other party possible voters as Kiffmeyer wanted to do, or tamper with US Attorneys as Bushco did with Heffelfinger to push them into phony vote fraud crusades against the poor and easily intimidated.

    Then in a situation as we have, each side watches the other and the officials and at the end the complaints are sorted out all at one time not peicemeal.

    There’s been no determination that an ultimate challenge of the situation you describe will or will not succeed. The Judge said [1] don’t go peicemeal, and [2] there is a review process at the end of a recount so a district court before reaching that stage lacks jurisdiction.

    That means ultimately, the panel, one from each camp plus a judge assigned by the court look at all the challenges, and reach answers.

    It is like redistricting. Neither side agrees with the other, but the range of disagreement is narrowed and ultimately a judge or a panel decides.

    Premature complaints only produce heat and no light.

  • J. Ewing says:

    After all the ballots are mixed together at these “counting centers,” the question of which precinct produced only legitimate ballots is forever lost. The easiest way to cheat in the current system is still to “stuff the ballot box”– called “finding ballots.” So far we’ve found hundreds of them, all marked for Al Franken, just as they were found for the Democrat in Washington State. In a few precincts, there were more ballots cast than there were registered voters. Yet Mr. Ritchie proposes to skip over this singularly critical verification step and go directly to “counting every ballot” as if all ballots were valid. Instead of declaring his supreme nonpartisanship nonstop, how about he offers some EVIDENCE of it, along with some basic competence at the job he holds?

Leave a Reply