If you have any questions on where, when or how to vote, the League of Women Voters has information on how to register to vote, where to vote in your local area, what to bring to the polling place and all the relevant laws governing the process at Vote411.org.

In St. Paul, Tuesday’s election signals the city’s first use of ranked choice voting, which allows voters to pick a second choice that will be counted if the voter’s first choice is eliminated (more information on ranked voting is available at the Ramsey County election center).

Wherever you are in the state, if you run into any problems at the polling places tomorrow—long lines, not enough ballots, partisan attempts to intimidate voters—we encourage you to report that news to the world by using the Twitter hashtag #votingproblems and by emailing the Minnesota Independent at tips@minnesotaindependent.com.

Republican Rep. Erik Paulsen won reelection in Minnesota’s Third Congressional District on Tuesday night, with the Associated Press calling the race about an hour after polls closed. At that time, Paulsen led DFLer Jim Meffert 58 percent to 37 percent with 80 percent of Hennepin County reporting.

Paulsen, a freshman, won the open seat in the 3rd Congressional District in 2008 with 48 percent of the vote after moderate Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad retired.

Paulsen faced a challenge from Meffert, a former lobbyist and member of the state Parent Teacher Association.

DFLers have been attempting to paint Paulsen as out of touch and tout his close voting record with Rep. Michele Bachmann, with whom he voted 93 percent of the time.

But, the DFL has focused so heavily on Bachmann that Meffert has gotten little help from the party. Paulsen outraised Meffert by $2 million and had seven times more cash on hand by mid-October. He’s run a series of negative television ads against Meffert.

The district was rated a tossup based on the Cook Partisan Voting Index; the district is split evenly between DFLers and Republicans.

Judge Hayden. Photo: UpTake

If only they’d used washable markers.

The Norm Coleman campaign this morning asked the judges in Minnesota’s Senate election contest trial to stop the secretary of state’s office from marking out numbers (pdf) on 933 absentee ballots that link them to the envelopes in which they arrived. But state workers have already blacked out almost all of the numbers, according to The UpTake.

UPDATE: The Secretary of State’s office now says half of the ballots remain unredacted. 

In a motion filed this morning, Coleman asked the court for a temporary injunction order to halt the redacting of the ID numbers. The work of separating envelopes from absentee ballots and marking out the numbers was included in the court’s Feb. 13 order, which also ruled out a dozen or so categories of absentee ballots from future re-examination.

Presiding Judge Elizabeth Hayden opened today’s session by announcing that the three-judge panel would hear arguments on a motion — possibly Coleman’s request for temporary injunction — later this afternoon.

Votes from the 933 ballots were added to the official election tally by order of the state Supreme Court during the last phase of the recount that ended last month. Attorneys for both Coleman and his rival, Democrat Al Franken, have since agreed those votes belong in the count.

But Coleman now contends that some of the 933 ballots fall into categories that the election trial court has refused to review as unlawfully cast. Because he might want to disallow some of the 933 votes on that basis — in itself, an about-face from pledges he wouldn’t seek to remove already-counted votes from the tally — he wants the redaction ordered a week ago to stop.

According to the UpTake, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann said re-linking redacted ballots and envelopes would require forensic research. Still, the move could serve to bolster equal-protection claims that Coleman’s attorneys have been pressing with increasing vigor in and out of the courtroom.

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.

Al Franken (Photo: Aaron Landry) and Norm Coleman (Photo: WDCpix.com)

In separate e-mails sent almost simultaneously this evening, Al Franken and former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman offered takes on President Obama’s inauguration as diametrically opposed in style as the Senate contenders are opposed in their rival campaigns. Franken’s is an unadorned, even bland two-paragraph statement about the honor he felt at attending the inauguration and the need to work together to face our challenges — with no mention of the vicious election contest. Coleman’s, by contrast, is titled “The Difference Between Obama and Franken” and caps off slams against Franken and the State Canvassing Board with a plea for cash, replete with links to the contribution page at his campaign Web site.

But earlier in the day Coleman’s blog carried his own bland statement, and on Monday Franken issued his own fundraising plea. Full texts of both e-mails and both earlier messages after the jump.

Norm Coleman message, datestamped 5:11 p.m., Jan. 20, 2009:

Dear Friend,

Today marks an historic occasion for each and every American, from all backgrounds, all political philosophies and all walks of life.  We all wish our new President well, and we will support him when we agree with him and be the voice of the loyal opposition when we do not.

Unfortunately, the kind of change that President Barack Obama brings to Washington is worlds apart from the kind of change that Al Franken is seeking here in Minnesota.

Barack Obama won a majority of our nation’s votes fair and square.
Al Franken had to change the rules of the game to overturn our victory.

Barack Obama was elected based on the principle of one person – one vote.
Al Franken’s lead exists because some votes were counted twice, while others weren’t counted at all.

Franken’s coordinated attempt to silence voices must not stand.  But it might, unless I hear from you soon.

Click here now to contribute $15, $25, $35, $50, $100 or more — up to $2,300 per person — to the Coleman for Senate Recount Fund.

The amount you contribute is important, but even more critical is your immediate reply.
In less than one week, a three-judge panel will begin to consider our legal challenge to Franken’s outrageous power grab.

We can’t be a day late or a dollar short in providing them with all the information they need to see that the latest results of the Canvassing Board are patently unconstitutional and inherently undemocratic.  With George Soros raising millions for Franken’s Recount Fund, I need your generous continued support.

Please let me hear from you soon.  Can I count on you to go my website now to get the latest news on our legal challenge, and to support our recount fund with your best contribution?

Yours truly,

Norm Coleman

Al Franken message, datestamped 4:59 p.m., Jan. 20, 2009:

It was a great honor to join so many hopeful, excited Americans in Washington today to witness the inauguration of our new President. Franni and I congratulate President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and their families on this momentous occasion, and like all our fellow citizens, we celebrate with both incredible joy and the solemn recognition of today’s place in our nation’s history.

Today, President Obama made clear what we all know: the challenges we face are significant, and change won’t happen overnight. But today, we are one nation united and ready to get to work, with a President ready to lead us. Like so many others, I have been inspired by our new President to look towards the future with optimism, and with the knowledge that there is nothing we can’t accomplish together. The next few years will call for bold action and courage on the part of our leaders and our citizens. And I know that, with all of us working together, we will meet that call.

Al Franken

Today marks an extraordinary moment in the history of our country. Watching Barack Obama be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States will forever be etched into the minds of so many of us as one of those moments for which you remember where you were and what you were doing when it happened. This is a great day for all Americans to come together for the good of our country. Laurie and I join the millions of Americans in congratulating President Obama and our thoughts and prayers are with he [sic] and his family as he assumes the office of the President of the United States.

The lawyers estimate that the court would find more than half the 12,000 had been wrongly rejected. And unlike the rejected ballots that favored Franken, the Coleman forces say these 6,000 or so ballots would be more evenly distributed among the candidates.

Compared with Franken’s forces, the lawyers in Coleman’s camp are late converts to the belief that a plenitude of rejected absentee ballots in Minnesota’s Senate election need to be reviewed. Yet their new-found ardor is arguably twice as strong as their rivals’ — they want the court to review ballots that election officials have by now twice rejected:

[W]e intend to vigorously … request that the 3-judge panel allow for the possibility that the roughly 12,000 rejected absentee ballots be opened.

That’s from a statement on Coleman’s campaign Web site, in which attorney Fritz Knaak openly baits the Franken campaign and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to challenge Coleman’s blanket request to review every rejected absentee ballot:

We expect that Minnesotans will share the same stunned disappointment we do to learn that the Franken campaign may actually oppose this fundamental act of fairness.

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has expressed dismay over the number of rejected absentee ballots in the election, and the state Legislature has taken up the issue for possible reforms this session.

But have you heard even one word yet from those voters?

“Oh, crap.”

Well, now you’ve heard two words.

Paula Guerra of St. Paul left for Utica, N.Y., on Oct. 11 to help her mother care for her ailing father. Her husband, Chris Farley, applied online to have Ramsey County send her an absentee ballot. It arrived two weeks before the election; Guerra mailed the ballot back the same day.

Then on Halloween, just four days before Election Day, Ramsey County returned Guerra’s ballot to her, unopened — rejected due to improper witnessing. Also included in the packet from the county were a new ballot and a page of instructions. “Oh, crap, I didn’t know this,” Guerra recalls thinking.

“There was a yellow sheet that they put in,” Guerra says. “It wasn’t in there the first time.”

The instructions explained that absentee voters who are out of state need to get their ballots signed by a notary public if no registered Minnesota voter is handy.

“I just had my sister sign as a witness,” Guerra said. Her sister is a New York resident. So this time Guerra got her mother-in-law, a notary public, to sign and stamp the ballot envelope.

“My God, you want to vote,” said the woman at the post office counter the next day, where Guerra paid a $15 overnight rate to send her second ballot back to Ramsey County.

It was supposed to arrive by Monday, or Tuesday morning, Election Day, at the latest.

“I’m really hoping it was counted,” Guerra says. “I wasn’t that concerned about Obama. It was for the Senate race. I knew it was going to be tight. It was on all the news shows.”

UPDATE: Guerra called Ramsey County after this post appeared to learn the status of her ballot. See this followup post. 

She said her ballot’s marked for Franken.

That instructions were missing from the first absentee ballot mailing appears to have been a mistake. The Ramsey County Elections office tells the Minnesota Independent that including the sheet is standard.

But Guerra and Farley say that her mishap might have been avoided had the ballot return envelope itself carried clearer directions. Another shortcoming they see, as Farley noted in a comment posted at MnIndy, is that the return envelope doesn’t provide space for a notary’s stamp and signature.

Ramsey County keeps records of rejected absentee ballots returned to voters, I was told today by an official who also invited Guerra to call to confirm her ballot was received and counted. Getting the names of absentee voters like Guerra who had ballots rejected but who may not have been as persistent — and may not have have been properly rejected in the first place — is the goal of a suit by the Franken campaign that was heard this morning in Ramsey County District Court, with the judge ruling in Franken’s favor this afternoon.

The story behind Guerra’s rejected absentee ballot demonstrates the difficulties that even well-intentioned and highly motivated voters can have from afar. Much of the recent debate over the Coleman-Franken U.S. Senate recount that commenced today in Minnesota has centered on whether the state will also examine absentee ballots to find (and count) any that local officials rejected improperly.

While voters’ intent on ballots that have been accepted is held sacred under Minnesota election law, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has made clear that the best intentions of rejected absentee voters to properly cast ballots are not. Absentee ballots that fail simple rules about signing, witnessing and mailing simply don’t get counted.

And while one problem appears to be the lack of a mechanism to promptly remedy improper rejections, Paula Guerra’s case suggests another problem: following absentee voting rules isn’t made as simple as it should be.

But can you film at the polls here in Minnesota? Sort of.

Minnesota Statutes may prohibit you from using a cell phone camera or other recording device within the polling place itself, even if your purpose is just to document your own voting experience, according to the Citizen Media Law Project. According to a statement from the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office:

While there is no state or federal law that strictly prohibits the use of cameras or other video equipment in the polling place to record an individual’s own voting experience, the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State strongly discourages voters from using cameras or video recorders in the polling place for the following reasons:

Voters have a right to privacy-both as to how an individual has voted as well as whether or not an individual has voted. Either or both of these could be compromised by pictures or video. In addition, other voters’ objections to being photographed could lead to disruptions within the polling place.

We are expecting record turnout this year, which means that there may be lines and polling places may be crowded. Voters have a right to take the time they need to vote, but should not take extra time to take pictures.

And if you are interviewing and filming voters, Minnesota law requires you remain 100 feet from the entrance. What’s more, a Minnesota statute prohibits voters from showing their marked ballot to others. Photographing or videoing a marked ballot “could” violate this law, Citizen Media Law Project notes.

Of course, this will be the first year that web site like YouTube and Twitter will play such an important role in determining voter fraud issues and quickly disseminating information about voter experiences. And given the privacy of voting and the confusing laws regarding camera use, we’re also betting the cameras themselves will become an issue at polling places as election officials order them turned off or removed based on state laws that vary across the country. But behind that little curtain, no one can stop you from filming video of your own experience and issues like the ones shown in the video below. We’ve contacted the SoS office for more information regarding videoing your vote and will update when we get the details.

Overshadowed by all the chatter about the high prices of gas and milk is another major economic indicator: The rising cost of health care. According to a recent University of Minnesota study (PDF), insured workers paid an average of 30 percent more for health insurance from 2001 to 2005. Average prices for a family premium increased from $8,281 in 2001 to $10,728 in 2005 while the average income only increased by three percent for the same period.

What’s more, as insurance costs rise for employers, fewer companies are offering it to employees. In Minnesota in 2001, 61 percent of private-sector employers offered health insurance. By 2005 it dropped to 54 percent.

The study does not include the increasing costs of single-payer health care. Yet even those who are insured are finding it difficult to pay for health care costs. A recent Gallup poll study found that three in 10 people surveyed had foregone medical treatment due to rising costs.

Despite those findings, voter concerns have shifted in recent weeks. With 87 percent of Americans believing the economy is getting worse, according to another Gallup study released last week, health care as a single issue has been superseded by economy fears and election-created issues.

In December 2007 health care was the third-biggest concern among voters. Today health care is fifth on the list of top voter concerns, just behind government corruption and terrorism.