pipress-vs-pipressYour Honors, I object. Today’s Pioneer Press editorial, using mock-trial lingo, declares, “This election is a tie” and calls for “a do-over election as the only way to pick a true winner” in the Senate contest that has Norm Coleman still trailing Al Franken. The timing of the PiPress’ abrupt change of heart is highly suspect, coming only two days after a real court deemed most kinds of ballots that Coleman wants counted out of order.

I call as my first and only witness — the Pioneer Press itself!

Pioneer Press, today you submit that ”what we have here is a statistical tie.” You say “there is no mandate to be found in the ‘random errors’ produced by our imperfect measuring instrument.” And even as the election-contest process you’ve said you respect remains underway, you conclude that holding a new “do-over” vote — a solution you now welcome seeing “on the horizon” – is the only way to settle this election.

It’s a very convenient time to reach that conclusion, don’t you think, now that the court has again seen fit to shrink the universe of ballots that could provide a reversal for Coleman? Why the sudden-onset despair from an editorial page that has — with the odd exception now and then — cheered on the state’s patient, painstaking approach?

Let’s sample what you’ve had to say on the subject since you endorsed Coleman last fall. What, for example, did you say on Nov. 18 about letting the system work?

It’s not necessarily pretty, but the system is working. Competition and the institutions that support rule of law are doing what they’re supposed to. As all of the legally cast and counted votes are recounted, a process Minnesotans can be proud of should lead to a result they can believe.

And what did you say on Nov. 25 about letting the election contest run its course?

… a court contest seems highly likely. … A discrepancy in totals, a “missing” ballot or two, a rejected absentee — all may fit the bill. Let us hope that whoever jumps into court first has the decency to wait until the last pile has been collated and the totals posted.

And what did you say on Dec. 30 about our prospects for deciding an apparent tie?

Let us say it again. We do not know who won. How we decide a statistically tied election is more important right now than who is declared the winner. It will take time. We can get through it.

And what did you say on Jan. 4 about allowing Minnesota’s process to play out?

Because this process involves human beings, it has required corrections and judgment calls. But, slowly, painstakingly, everyone involved, from election officials to the two campaigns, has pursued the answer to the question, who won? There’s form and substance to the process of finding that answer, and it needs to play out — in Minnesota. The U.S. Senate, along with partisans favoring one candidate or the other, should just sit tight while Minnesotans reason their way to a decision.

And what did you say on Jan. 6 about the election contest being part of that process?

Coleman plans to file a legal challenge, known as an election contest, today. … No one wants an interminable trial of Minnesota’s election system. But Coleman has a right to make his case.

And what did you say on Jan. 7 about allowing our process to settle an close election with its inevitable errors?

Errors happen, and at some point, neutral referees need to make a call. Will a two-month legal fight will produce more confidence in the result? Maybe not. But it is the procedure spelled out in Minnesota law and it could put all remaining issues before neutral arbiters one more time. … While we do not expect instant results, we do want and need the finality of a ruling based on the best evidence available.

No more questions, Your Honors. I rest my case.