I just got off the phone with a loyal reader of LFR just minutes ago. This loyal reader told me that Team Franken is objecting to all kinds of different things. Some of these things include ballots where the voter placed an X inside the oval instead of filling the oval in.

This is despicable. Team Franken is clearly ignoring this section of Minnesota state election statutes:

Subdivision 1. Ballot valid if intent determinable. A ballot shall not be rejected for a technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s intent. In determining intent the principles contained in this section apply.
Subd. 2. From face of ballot only. Intent shall be ascertained only from the face of the ballot.
Subd. 3. Votes for too many candidates. If a voter places a mark (X) beside the names of more candidates for an office than are to be elected or nominated, the ballot is defective with respect only to that office. No vote shall be counted for any candidate for that office, but the rest of the ballot shall be counted if possible. At a primary, if a voter has not indicated a party preference and places a mark (X) beside the names of candidates of more than one party on the partisan ballot, the ballot is totally defective and no votes on it shall be counted. If a voter has indicated a party preference at a primary, only votes cast for candidates of that party shall be counted.

Here’s another relevant portion of Minnesota recount law:

Voter’s intent will be determined pursuant to M.S. 204C.22. The candidate or his/her representative (but not both) has the right to challenge which piles I have decided to place the ballot in. Challenges may not be automatic or frivolous. The challenger needs to describe why they challenge the decision. I may decide they are right. If I do not agree and the challenge is not withdrawn, I will write why it is challenged on the ballot and place it in an envelope marked “Challenged Ballots”. The challenged ballots will be brought to the canvass board and they will examine them and make a decision how to count them.

Based on this section, challenges should be ruled frivolous if voter intent is clear. Someone that underlines or circles a candidate’s name or who puts a check mark or an X in the box has clearly indicated their intent. That’s how election officials have been routinely ruling since the recount started.

Challenges like that must be squashed immediatly. Team Franken should be held accountable for such despicable, thinly veiled attempts to steal this election.

I’ll further add that, should Sen. Coleman wins this hand recount, Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats better seat Sen. Coleman. If they vote against seating him, the right blogosphere will remind voters at the midterm election that their senator voted against We The People. They will have voted against their mantra of counting every vote by virtue of ignoring We The People’s votes. That’s unacceptable.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

12 Responses to “Team Franken’s Despicable Tactics, Part II”

  • Ralph Kramden says:

    If a voter has marked every other race on the ballot with a clear “X” in the oval, but marks the senate race with an “X” and then scribbles over it, what do you think the voter’s intent is?

  • Gary Gross says:

    Without being able to picture that, I’ll refrain from answering.

  • Ralph Kramden says:

    OK, I’ll try again – let’s say every race is marked with an X in the oval by one and only one candidate, except for the Senate race, which is marked like the picture in your previous blog entry.

    Can you discern the voter’s intent?

  • Ralph Kramden says:

    For the REAL junkies, it looks like there’s a real-time aggregator site:

    with a minute-to-minute twitter feed, lots of video clips, etc.

    I haven’t perused the site long enough to discern a bias, if any. As of 3:12 PM CST, it’s Coleman by 159.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Why are Coleman’s challenges considered respectable and Franken’s despicable?

    Simple. The ballots challenged by Franken’s team will be accepted by the canvassing board with little or no hesitation. It isn’t totally unlikely that the election officials would deem these challenges frivolous.

  • walter hanson says:

    I think what the Franken campaign is doing is to challenge any questionable ballot in the hopes of knocking Coleman’s lead away (even if temporary) to say Al is the winner.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • kory says:

    Sorry man, both sides are obviously frivolously contesting ballots: Obviously you are biased toward Coleman. has some pretty unbiased reporting of the recount.

  • Gary Gross says: has some pretty unbiased reporting of the recount.

    Anything that Noah Kunin’s involved in isn’t unbiased. PERIOD.

  • Steve says:

    Keep up the great work.

    Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??

  • Gary Gross says:

    Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??

    That’s a great looking blog. Keep up the good work & thanks for stopping.

  • eric z says:

    Statewide, as of yesterday’s posting, Coleman challenges = 374.

    Franken challenges = 360.

    This site:

    That looks equal to me, and comprehensive, not anecdotal.

    Unless, you want to make something of Coleman’s folks making more of a ruckus, by 14 challenges??

  • walter hanson says:


    You had better reread that screen.

    374 Coleman votes had been challenged by Franken

    while the 360 had been challedged by Coleman.

    Of course maybe since you can’t read your vote on election day had to be one of the ballots challenged.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

Leave a Reply