Coleman campaign chairman Cullen Sheehan issued this statement immediately after today’s canvassing board hearing:

“As the Canvassing Board rejected the Franken Campaign’s brazen attempt to stop the recount, it’s clear the Franken Campaign now has to answer questions about which counties they accuse of failing to do their jobs. We find these last minute accusations to be an insult to every election official who has worked diligently to complete the work they were called upon to finish prior to today’s canvassing hearing.”

I wrote here that David Lillehaug made the assertion that they’d found errors in handline of absentee ballots in 49 of Minnesota’s 87 counties. I noticed that Mr. Lillehaug didn’t cite any documentation that Team Franken had sent that pointed at this information. I think it’s odd that they didn’t cite a report showing this.

What I recall is that Mr. Lillehaug kept saying that he could point to many more incidences than the 4 Team Franken has already mentioned. I thought it sounded like John Kerry in 04 saying that his plan was on and John McCain this year saying that “I know how to fix these problems”, then noticeably not providing specifics on how he’d fix the economy. If Mr. Lillehaug is capable of citing specifics, now’s the time to do it.

Another thing I recall from today’s hearing is the repeated use of the term “flurry of documents” provided by the Franken campaign. Judge Gearin mentioned that some of the documents arrived minutes before their departure for the meeting. Lillehaug must’ve known that they couldn’t have reviewed this material, much less rule on this information.

If the Franken campaign had that information, they should’ve made extra copies of the documentation, which they could’ve given to the press to dutifully investigated.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Coleman Campaign to Team Franken: Start Naming Names”

  • eric z says:

    Thanks again for the live blogging.

    It seems the absentee ballot focus is because the statute says they are counted after election day, separate from where each party has election judges. By the “county canvassing board.”

    I think the Franken strategy is to contest county processes where the Coleman vote far outranked the Franken vote, as where I live, Anoka County, where people vote like idiots [for GOP candidates].

    It is a perogative, but with a manual recount the entire worry should be ballot security over the intervening time between election day and when absentee ballots are handled, to point of recount.

    Am I missing something. It is largely irrelevant what the machines said, since people will review and override anything the machines said.

    If sheriffs have trouble with losses from their property rooms, and seized drugs often weighing less and less the more times handled and weighed, what if a pack of papers in official custody loses pages here, pages there, and all the lost ones say one name not the other?

    Isn’t ballot security pre-recount the only real worry?

  • Gary Gross says:

    as where I live, Anoka County, where people vote like idiots [for GOP candidates].

    CORRECTION: Where people vote like geniuses. LOL

Leave a Reply