Comments on: U.S. Senate recount: It’s a legal matter, baby

By: Paul Schmelzer

Paul Schmelzer — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:21:38 +0000

That is correct. My error, dangit.

By: tedb

tedb — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:02:14 +0000

Your update is wrong: “UPDATE: Judge Lindman has ruled in Coleman’s favor..”
Rather, the judge ruled in Franken’s favor, as your website correctly reports elsewhere.

By: Derrick Mancini

Derrick Mancini — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:44:12 +0000

Note that the AG opinion does NOT say that the Franken campaign cannot ask for the ballots, or that they cannot be reconsidered per se, just that they cannot be considered in the recount. In other words, the recount can only consider the non-rejected ballots. The Franken campaign can ask for information about the rejected ballots (whether they must receive it is unknown) as part of an attempt to prosecute a challenge to the election on the basis of irregularities. Then this information would be necessary as evidence. So, the AG only said that the information should not be made public or otherwise pursued as part of the recount. It did not weigh in on the issue of providing the information to the campaign in an effort to determine if there was a basis for challenging the election because of irregularities.

By: Mark M

Mark M — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:27:17 +0000

Where is the AG opinion published? This is the first I’ve heard of it. I thought most of the case law was in favor of counting all casted ballots and having a higher authority than an election clerk review rejected absentee ballots.