Comments on: Experts: Unanimous court order tough for Coleman to tear down http://minnesotaindependent.com/32092/experts-order-tough-coleman News. Politics. Media. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:43:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Why Norm’s Chances Were Always Slim At Best « Mercury Rising 鳯女 http://minnesotaindependent.com/32092/experts-order-tough-coleman/comment-page-1#comment-28908 Why Norm’s Chances Were Always Slim At Best « Mercury Rising 鳯女 Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:50:53 +0000 http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=32092#comment-28908 [...] by Phoenix Woman on April 14, 2009 From the Minnesota Independent: Coleman’s equal protection argument is “not trivial,” writes Guy Charles, a University of [...] [...] by Phoenix Woman on April 14, 2009 From the Minnesota Independent: Coleman’s equal protection argument is “not trivial,” writes Guy Charles, a University of [...]

]]> By: Minnesota Central http://minnesotaindependent.com/32092/experts-order-tough-coleman/comment-page-1#comment-28907 Minnesota Central Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:50:35 +0000 http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=32092#comment-28907 Regarding the decision itself, overall it was proper but I was disappointed in their failure to address a number of things. #1. They sidestepped the "missing" ballot question. The judges declared the 132 ballots “were cast and properly counted on Election Day.” True, but since they were lost, we do not know if they were accurately counted. Considering the Kentucky case in which a Judge and election workers are accused of altering ballots after being submitted by the voter, the concern is that evidence could be destroyed and the results accepted. What if the "missing" ballot group was from Carver County which gave Coleman's his largest margin, would Franken supporters look at this issue differently. Fortunately, the outcome would not have changed because of the number of votes involved, however I would like to have seen some instruction from the Court that these situations have to be investigated and resolution determined on a case-by-case basis (absent a change in election laws.) #2. What about voter fraud prosecution? During the trial, Coleman witnesses admitted that they did not sign the forms ... shouldn't the Court have instructed the AG to investigate ? #3. What about voter suppression ? Did some counties go beyond the norm to disallow voter's ballots ? For example, in Carver County, again, it provide Coleman with his largest margin, evaluated the witness' status on State's Voter database ... this is not a requirement ... but by doing so, they rejected potential voters. {Now, we don't know how many may have gotten the problem corrected.} Considering that the highest number of rejected ballots were from Benton, Crow Wing, and Itasca counties ... and all were easily won by Coleman, there is a concern for voter suppression. Regarding the decision itself, overall it was proper but I was disappointed in their failure to address a number of things.
#1. They sidestepped the “missing” ballot question. The judges declared the 132 ballots “were cast and properly counted on Election Day.” True, but since they were lost, we do not know if they were accurately counted. Considering the Kentucky case in which a Judge and election workers are accused of altering ballots after being submitted by the voter, the concern is that evidence could be destroyed and the results accepted. What if the “missing” ballot group was from Carver County which gave Coleman’s his largest margin, would Franken supporters look at this issue differently. Fortunately, the outcome would not have changed because of the number of votes involved, however I would like to have seen some instruction from the Court that these situations have to be investigated and resolution determined on a case-by-case basis (absent a change in election laws.)

#2. What about voter fraud prosecution? During the trial, Coleman witnesses admitted that they did not sign the forms … shouldn’t the Court have instructed the AG to investigate ?

#3. What about voter suppression ? Did some counties go beyond the norm to disallow voter’s ballots ? For example, in Carver County, again, it provide Coleman with his largest margin, evaluated the witness’ status on State’s Voter database … this is not a requirement … but by doing so, they rejected potential voters. {Now, we don’t know how many may have gotten the problem corrected.} Considering that the highest number of rejected ballots were from Benton, Crow Wing, and Itasca counties … and all were easily won by Coleman, there is a concern for voter suppression.

]]>