Comments on: Coleman puts six voters on stand in Senate election contest trial

By: by jiminy

by jiminy — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:28:09 +0000

I agree with Tara above: what’s the point of requiring a signature, if it doesn’t have to be yours? And more the point, given all these weeks to prepare, and pick their four most heart-wrenching examples to lead with, that’s the best they can come up with? An obviously illegal ballot, and the argument, well, it had SOMEBODY’s signature, that should be good enough?

By: tess

tess — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:40:18 +0000

We personally think the original voting should stand.
Franken can find a million reasons to question the vote.
But – that is true of the other side too.
Once the voting is over, it is over and final – NO MORE
LOOKING FOR WAYS TO FINAGLE THE VOTE!

By: crohn's patient

crohn's patient — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:26:30 +0000

No taxation without representation! We have a multitude of issues being addressed in Congress while all this nonsense is going on. Why is this not brought up? We have one Senator and as far as I know, the Feds are still taxing us right now. I sure hope we get a “credit” on our federal returns this year for the days we went without representation….

By: Tara

Tara — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:23:34 +0000

I was pretty struck by the witness who said the signatures didn’t match because his girlfriend signed his absentee ballot. That should ABSOLUTELY invalidate his ballot. Why he couldn’t sign his own ballot is beyond me.. I just can’t believe that Coleman’s people would put someone like that on the stand.

By: Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:59:09 +0000

Suddenly the Republicans are defenders of elderly people with trouble voting. When they don’t have photo IDs because they don’t drive anymore, the Republicans are happy to disenfranchise them. Any wonder why poor or disabled elderly tend to vote Democratic?