November 2nd, 2009 • 4:27 amMichael Brodkorb on Investigating Mark Ritchie
Saturday afternooon, I interviewed Minnesota Republican Party Vice-Chairman Michael Brodkorb to get a better understanding why the Republican Party of Minnesota has asked Rep. Gene Pelowski and Sen. Ann Rest to conduct an investigation into the myriad election irregularities. It didn’ take long before Michael takled about the lack of standards used in counting absentee ballots:
It’s clear from KSTP’s report that mistakes were made regarding how absentee ballots were counted. Similar ballots cast in different areas were treated differently.
In fact, the video that KSTP shot in interviewing 3 election judges shows one judge, Marjorie Dolan, admitting that they didn’t reject any absentee ballots, saying that she only checked to see if that voter was registered to vote in that precinct and whether that person had voted in person. I wrote this winter what the criteria is for accepting or rejecting absentee ballots. Here’s the exhaustive list of criteria:
The election judges shall mark the return envelope “Accepted” and initial or sign the return envelope below the word “Accepted” if the election judges or a majority of them are satisfied that:
(1) the voter’s name and address on the return envelope are the same as the information provided on the absentee ballot application;
(2) the voter’s signature on the return envelope is the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for ballots and the certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions for casting an absentee ballot, except that if a person other than the voter applied for the absentee ballot under applicable Minnesota Rules, the signature is not required to match;
(3) the voter is registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has included a properly completed voter registration application in the return envelope; and
(4) the voter has not already voted at that election, either in person or by absentee ballot.
There is no other reason for rejecting an absentee ballot. In particular, failure to place the envelope within the security envelope before placing it in the outer white envelope is not a reason to reject an absentee ballot.
Clearly, the election judges didn’t use this criteria. Not surprisingly, Michael has an opinion on what happened:
#1. SoS Ritchie had a responsibility to train local election officials and it’s clear that mistakes were made. His training simply didn’t work. #2. Local elections officials either didn’t know how to count absentee ballots or they chose to ignore the law, either way there are still questions as to who was actually elected to the U.S. Senate, Al Franken or Norm Coleman…
I agree with Michael’s opinion. In fact, the video quotes the 3 election judges interviewed as saying they weren’t told what the absentee ballot criteria was. For failing to provide election judges with the proper training, I’m giving DFL SecState Ritchie an F. This is too important to following the rule of law to not properly train election judges on Minnesota election law.
I’m especially critical of DFL SecState Ritchie on this because I taught myself about Minnesota election law as it pertains to accepting or rejecting absentee ballots. Would it have been too difficult for SecState Ritchie to have distributed printed copies of the criteria for accepting or rejecting absentee ballots? This seems like a no-brainer consideration.
A nationally-recognized election law expert said that Minnesota’s election laws are the “gold standard”, an opinion I share with him. The laws’ logic is impeccable, the laws’ language clear and precise. Again, this leads to questioning why SecState Ritchie didn’t conduct training classes for these judges.
Michael said that he found SecState Ritchie’s attitude appalling:
As I said in the press conference…His approach to enforcing election law is the “Alfred E. Neuman” approach - “what, me worry?” He has a responsibility to take these matters seriously and he didn’t…he was combative and obnoxious…For him to tell the reporter from KSTP that “You would have had to tell me to bring my glasses” in response to evidence of problems with absentee ballots is complete abdication of his responsibilities as SOS…he simply doesn’t care.
Some of the ballots shown to DFL SecState Ritchie didn’t have signatures on them. How difficult is it to see that? If DFL SecState Ritchie needs glasses for determining that, then he isn’t physically capable of doing his job. It isn’t inappropriate to say that Ritchie didn’t display any concern for legitimate errors that the KSTP investigation found.
Someone who was genuinely concerned about enforcing clearly written, well-thought out election laws, the laws that national election experts say is “the gold standard” for state election laws would be appalled that some absentee ballots marked as accepted didn’t have signatures on them while other absentee ballots have witnesses. That Ritchie wasn’t appalled speaks volumes about his (lack of) commitment to enforcing Minnesota’s election laws.
Not surprisingly, Michael Brodkorb has an opinion about what SecState Ritchie represents to Minnesota elections:
Remember…there is no greater threat to fair & open elections in Minnesota than Mark Ritchie…
From DFL SecState Ritchie’s not training election judges on absentee ballot election laws to his flippant attitude when confronted with obvious mistakes made, Minnesotans have every reason to not trust DFL SecState Ritchie. Because Minnesotans haven’t seen proof that Ritchie runs a tight election ship in terms of following the election laws of this state, Minnesotans have a legitimate right to question Ritchie’s integrity and competence.
In 2007 school referenda votes, the Secretary of State’s website didn’t have correctly updated vote totals on whether the levy referenda had passed. In some instances, they didn’t post the correct totals until days after the election and the local newspapers had written the stories. That’s the picture of utter incompetence.
Here’s a lengthy exchange between Michael and myself:
GARY: You’re calling on Rep. Gene Pelowski & Sen. Ann Rest to conduct hearings into this issue. What things should they look into specifically?
MICHAEL: Specifically…Chairman Sutton and I asked for a “full accounting of the procedures and policies of absentee ballots as administered by the Office of Secretary of State…” We want to know why absentee ballots were treated differently depending on where you live…But we also need a new SOS…there is no greater threat to fair & open elections in Minnesota than Mark Ritchie…
GARY: I agree…If you won’t obey clearly written laws, then you aren’t doing your duty. What you’re doing is disenfranchising people who followed the rules.
MICHAEL: Yes…and let me very clear for your readers…there is no greater threat to fair & open elections in Minnesota than Mark Ritchie…SoS Ritchie’s “leadership” has likely created the largest collection of disenfranchised voters in Minnesota history…That’s a great question Gary…that is why we need to have people show a photo id when they vote…
GARY: By not following Minnesota’s election laws, which are the most clearly written election laws in the nation, Mr. Ritchie has given us a reason not to trust him. How can we be certain that the people whose names are on the envelopes are the people who voted?
MICHAEL: That’s a great question Gary…that is why we need to have people show a photo id when they vote…
In summation, it’s clear that DFL SecState Ritchie didn’t provide a clear explanation of the criteria for accepting or rejecting absentee ballots to election judges. It’s equally clear that he didn’t the right fidelity to Minnesota’s election laws. Finally, he didn’t prove to Minnesotans that he’s taking his responsibilities as Minnesota’s chief election officer seriously.
This is certainly grounds for Rep. Pelowski and Sen. Rest to hold extensive hearings into the breakdown within DFL SecState Ritchie’s office during the 2008 elections. Now it’s a matter of DFL Speaker Kelliher and DFL Majority Leader Pogemiller letting them conduct exhaustive investigations into why this many mistakes were made in a single election cycle.
If Kelliher and Pogemiller don’t affirmatively call for exhaustive investigations, then I’ll assume that they take obeying election laws as unseriously as DFL Secstate Ritchie does.
Technorati: Elections, Absentee Ballots, Election Laws, Mark Ritchie, Training, Leadership, Law Enforcement, Secretary Of State, Ann Rest, Gene Pelowski, Larry Pogemiller, Speaker Kelliher, Investigations, DFL, KSTP-TV, Michael Brodkorb, Tony Sutton, News Conference, MNGOP
Entries RSS2 Feed
I am unsure what you are saying. The SoS, be it Ritchie now or when things were much worse, Kiffmeyer, cannot make election judges do their job. They are DFL and GOP affiliates, at each precinct the biases cancel out, and they do as they do. Are you saying that during the Kiffmeyer term things were better. I would need to see evidence on that. And a media outlet with anecdotal stories; really Gary, that’s unscientific sampling. You know that.
But we each have a pet project investigation we’d like to see.
I would like to see the failure of the Kiffmeyer - Jesus bank in Otsego investigated - what kind of consistent bad lending criteria drove the federal government into having to bail out that bank’s depositors, etc.
For those that do not like federal powers reaching far, Gary, should the FDIC have said, “Let Jesus protect your deposits or sue the management that made the bad decisions for negligence.”
It is government insurance, isn’t it? Isn’t that, government interference with private contract, something you dislike and have preached against?
Comment by eric z. • 02Nov2009 @ 7:46 am
I did not say it in the earlier comment, so I will briefly amend - this Brodkorb witch hunt against the best SoS the decade’s seen, really, don’t you abhor government waste - which is what this witch hunt would be?
Comment by eric z. • 02Nov2009 @ 7:50 am
What Eric Z fails to acknowledge is that Mark Ritchie is owned and operated by ACORN. ACORN PAC funded Ritchie’s campaign, and hatch’s, and Swansons.
ACORN is responsible for 75% of new voter registrations in Minnesota. Every other state has investigated ACORN, specifically, each Attorney General and Secretary Of State has supported investigations into voter registration irregularities and voting fraud allegations. Ours balk at any scrutiny of ACORN.
The only plausible explanation as to why Minnesota is the only state unwilling to call for an investigation of ACORN is the documented conflict of interest Mark Ritchie and Lori Swanson enjoy with their ACORN cronies.
Ritchie was the registered agent for Tides Center in Minnesota. Tides Foundation is the main conduit of cash to all things ACORN nationally.
If this type of corruption was perpetrated by republicans there would be lawsuits galore and calls for removal if not criminal charges against the AG and SOS.
But not in Minnesota! Nothing wrong here bubbalooie.
I sat at a table with Mark Ritchie and Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Pat Diamond. Richie repeatedly claimed there is not one cintilla of evidence of any wrongdoing in Minnesota elections. Pat Diamond then outlined dozens of open investigations in Hennepin County. One of these gentlemen isn’t telling the truth.
The noxious aroma of bovine feces fills the air. And everybody acts like it’s sweet petunias!
Comment by Drew Emmer • 02Nov2009 @ 8:57 am
[...] Republican Party of Minnesota Deputy Chair Michael Brodkorb was interview by Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring Blog about the Party’s call for an investigation into problems with how absentee ballots were counted in 2008. The interview is a must read. [...]
Pingback by MUST READ: BRODKORB HAMMERS SOS RITCHIE IN INTERVIEW FOR LET FREEDOM RING BLOG | Minnesota Democrats Exposed • 02Nov2009 @ 9:17 am
***
If this type of corruption was perpetrated by republicans there would be lawsuits galore and calls for removal if not criminal charges against the AG and SOS.
***
Maybe so, but not from your side of the aisle, Drew.
Where were you, Drew, when Mary Kiffmeyer was defrauding the taxpayers with her faux “mileage reimbursements”? Where were you, when Kiffmeyer was overpaying her emplyees?
(cue crickets chirping…)
And where are you now, regarding an independent investigation into Kiffmeyer’s banking scandal?
As for “voting irregularites and voting fraud allegations” I seem to remember The Fourth Most Corrupt Senator’s leagle beagle stating the following, before the State Supreme Court:
***
“There is no evidence of fraud in this election. And maybe it’s the law out there; maybe it’s the character of the people in Minnesota. We don’t have any fraud.”
Joe Friedberg, arguing before the Minnesota Supreme Court, 01 June 2009
***
Hey, Drew? Thanks for proving, once again:
“Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP”
Comment by Tommy Johnson • 02Nov2009 @ 9:32 am
Tommy, Let me get this straight. You think that investigating physically provable instances where absentee ballots that shouldn’t have been accepted were accepted is wasting money? Is that what you’re saying? I hope I’ve got this wrong because I’d think that protecting election integrity should be as high a priority as protecting our First Amendment’s protections or other constitutional protections.
Do you REALLY want to defend that position? I hope it isn’t. I’d hate to think that you’re either not that bright or that you’re just that corrupt.
Comment by Gary Gross • 02Nov2009 @ 10:40 am
Gary, are you saying that Mark Ritchie made mistakes that compromised the integrity of the election results or are you saying that he intentionally supressed known Coleman votes in a successful effort to rig the election?
Comment by apathyboy • 02Nov2009 @ 11:00 am
I’m saying what can be proven: (a) that Ritchie failed to provide the training that local election judges need for processing absentee ballots, (b) that Ritchie should’ve sent out a memo reminding local election judges the 4 specific criteria that must be complied with for an absentee ballot to be accepted & (c) that Ritchie didn’t propose changes to correct the mistakes that were made during the 2008 election.
Instead, he’s refused to implement changes that correct the mistakes of 2008. His inaction speaks loudest of all.
Comment by Gary Gross • 02Nov2009 @ 11:10 am
Wow, the first thing out of the laundry box is the old “well, Republicans were worse”? How about the topic at hand? If Ritchies conduct is deplorable, incompetent and possibly criminal, why shouldn’t that be our first focus? Then, if somebody thinks there is something left over from the Kiffmeyer days (best SOS we’ve ever had) on which the statute of limitations or who-gives-a-rip hasn’t run out, let’s investigate her, TOO.
I’m still amazed by all this sound and fury over a few hundred, or maybe a thousand, absentee ballots that were allowed to improperly alter the outcome of the US Senate race, when the many TENS of thousands of dead people, ACORNS (fictional nuts) and double voters that Ritchie is SUPPOSED to prevent, by law, but hasn’t even looked for after the fact, still get their votes counted, just like real people. I guess he’s just like the Clintons. Faced with a choice between being criminal and incompetent, he’ll claim incompetence every time. Neither qualifies him for the office he holds.
Comment by J. Ewing • 02Nov2009 @ 11:18 am
I believe that after the election judges recounted the state supreme court ordered about 5,000 absentee ballots to be counted and that at the time of Coleman’s withdrawal only a few hundred remained in dispute. So the ballots that Brodkorb was referring to may have been counted.
It’s true that local officials could have been better prepared for this, but the State Supreme Court is part of the process. Unless they were also guilty of incompetence the process itself was not flawed.
Also this claim stems entirely from a KSTP “gotcha” piece which brings it’s ethos into question. I think similar examples from other journalistic sources would improve the argument if you have them.
Comment by apathyboy • 02Nov2009 @ 12:23 pm
Actually, the Supremes that decided the case were missing the Chief Justice & another Pawlenty appointee. Ritchie picked them for the recount to prevent them from ruling on the case after the recount.
If you’re arguing that doing an exhaustive investigation that turned up indisputable proof that serial & serious mistakes were made in accepting & rejecting absentee ballots is “gotcha” journalism, then, yeah, this was the most important, fact-filled piece of gotcha journalism in recent history.
Twenty years ago, this would’ve been characterized, rightly, as the press doing its job. Now liberals are calling it “gotcha journalism”? Is the definition of “gotcha journalism” the press catching another liberal failing to meet his constitutional responsibilities?
Comment by Gary Gross • 02Nov2009 @ 2:58 pm
The court never addressed the fact that, in some precincts (heavily Democratic ones, naturally) there were more votes cast than there were people registered to vote. That is clearly impossible, yet Mr. Ritchie never batted an eye. That some of these ballots were found in a car trunk didn’t matter. That some of the people who voted were dead didn’t matter. Nothing mattered except guaranteeing a Franken win; it is the obvious conclusion. Though I still like the incompetence defense, having seen the man on television unable to answer even the simplest question about his job.
Comment by J. Ewing • 02Nov2009 @ 3:36 pm
Here’s Franken’s response to claims of election fraud. It shows how certain facts were distorted to support faulty claims: “ballots were transported by car to the City Hall” becomes “ballots were forgotten in the back of the car,” becomes “Ritchie ordered votes to be hidden in a car to prevent them from being counted.”
This is just another case of the losing side crying foul when they lose a close election, just like the Democrats did in Florida.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122723054779146549.html
Comment by apathyboy • 02Nov2009 @ 4:14 pm
Well, hello again, Gary.
A question. Who hires, pays, and trains election judges? Check it out Gary. I don’t know. Do you?
My sister has been an election judge more than once, in Ramsey, Anoka County, and her recollection is the training was little different during Kiffmeyer and Ritchie times, and the County plays a major role.
So, is it local control of the local precinct polling places, with the county election officials trained by the SoS and then the local judges trained locally?
My sister’s recollection on absentee ballots is the county officials at their central offices open the outer envelope and check against registration rolls and for the registration card in the outer envelope.
The kosher absentee ballots [those that the county allows go to precinct polling places for counting] are counted with absentee ballots specially stamped as such, with a rubber stamp given the precinct polling place for that purpose, and the voter name is checked against those voting that day to assure against double voting and counting.
That’s Anoka County. In the past.
I make no claim that local control is the same elsewhere, and I ask whether you and Brodkorb are demanding that the State mandate every left and right term to neuter all local control norms and discretion, in conforming to state law, or what?
And are you saying the SoS is responsible for how each and every county functionary operates? If so, how do you propose the SoS should police such things on existing budgeting?
Was that to your knowledge how Kiffmeyer operated? Policing every step county officials took?
That is one key thing unclear to me in all this.
The other interesting thing - Ritchie has never put out any offensive profiling thing, about if voters smell of garlic or whatever they should have extra scrutiny. It was the Kiffer that did such a patently offensive thing.
She was/is a consumate turkey.
Comment by eric z. • 02Nov2009 @ 4:41 pm
That’s exactly what I’m saying. The SecState is THE chief election officer in the state. Just like it’s Gov. Pawlenty’s responsibility to police his administration when they buy $60,000 worth of 50″ flat screen TVs for sex offenders, it’s Ritchie’s responsibility to police the people responsible for counting votes.
That’s the wrong question. I’m demanding that everyone that’s associated with counting votes follows Minnesota’s election laws flawlessly. I taught myself what criteria were codified into Minnesota’s election laws for accepting or rejecting absentee ballots. That ballots were accepted that didn’t have a signature on them is totally unacceptable. That’s one of the 4 criteria that must be met for a ballot to be accepted. THIS ISN’T ROCKET SCIENCE!!!
The laws are exceptionally straightforward. They weren’t the problem. The problem was in the ‘rubber-meets-the-road’ part of counting absentee ballots. Whether these judges were corrupt or whether they’re just plain incompetent, I don’t know. What I’m certain of, though, is that they failed.
Would it have been that difficult for SecState Ritchie to have emailed the election judges with a copy of Minnesota’s election laws? If the answer to that question is yes, then he’s incompetent. If the answer is no, then I’d question his commitment to following Minnesota’s election laws.
Comment by Gary Gross • 03Nov2009 @ 1:23 am
[...] wrote here about KSTP’s investigation into multiple irregularities in accepting or rejecting absentee [...]
Pingback by Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Ritchie’s Whiney Fundraising Letter • 03Nov2009 @ 2:23 am
Gary, Gary, Gary.
When a hirling of a giant corporation, an entity, releases pollutants in some criminal fashion, do you go to the CEO to prosecute or do you prosecute the miscreant individual?
We are all deemed to know the criminal law, and I suggest that county election officials are deemed to know election law.
If GOP election judges make errors, your logic would have Sutton and Brodkorb responsible for them since in the GOP those are the top people.
I can agree that if in the State some officials discharge their duty wrongly the State is at fault and can be sued.
But if you’ve a complaint in some office of a female coworker groping you wrongly, it’s against the individual, and the State, the entity, but not the CEO. You do not say the head of the highway patrol is responsible if some trooper is found taking bribes, do you?
This is nothing but a partisan attack on a fine and capable official who oversaw a recount that reversed an awful election day error, and you do not like that result and are looking for cheap attack lines - or if not you, initiating it, you are speaking in favor of the individual who apparently is instigating such divisive partisan complaining.
And as others are aware, give the budget for what you say you want the job to be. It seems, Gary, someone involved in this blog who I will not name [but initials are GG] wants it both ways - hold tight budgets, put constraints on individuals.
And if you want an analogy of Pawlenty - I would say he is responsible for the Commerce Department and its failure earlier to close the Kiffmeyer bank in Otsego to cut losses the taxpayers suffer [via the FDIC depositor guarantees using federal funds] earlier at lesser amounts.
Never mind a few TVs. Gary, letting that bank go too long because it was the Feds that would pick up the tab, not the State, that’s kind of shabby, isn’t it, especially on the watch of one we see wanting to step into running the federal machinery or at least posing that way in New York’s 23d Congressional District and elsewhere outside of Minnesota.
Comment by eric z. • 03Nov2009 @ 7:26 am