November 18-23, 2010
Nov 18 01:01 That Howling Noise Is The Law Being Followed Nov 18 12:26 Ghailani Verdict a Dark Stain on Obama's, Holder's Records Nov 19 08:42 Chairman Gottwalt Nov 20 22:44 Dayton's Whining Nov 22 08:13 Weekend Roundup Nov 22 09:22 Sen. Feinstein's Faux Crisis Nov 23 05:01 SCOMN in the crosshairs? Nov 23 18:38 Dayton Didn't Get the Memo
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
That Howling Noise Is The Law Being Followed
This afternoon, Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton announced that the gubernatorial recount is heading back to the Minnesota Supreme Court for the reconciliation process. The unfortunate thing about that is that most Minnesotans don't know what reconcilliation is.
Simply put, reconcilliation is the process by which the number of ballots cast is reconciled with the number of signatures on the voter sign-in sheets at the voting stations.
Hypothetically speaking, if 200 people signed in at St. Cloud's Ward 1, Precinct 1 but 225 ballots were cast, the courts could demand that 25 ballots be randomly picked from the pile, thereby bringing the number of ballots cast into balance with the number of signatures on the sign-in sheet.
The DFL will undoubtedly scream loud enough to wake up little children if that happens but that's the remedy laid out in Minnesota law.
Mitch Berg's post highlights Mark Ritchie's corruption in this matter:
More Votes Than People: In 2008, the Minnesota Majority claimed that there were about 40,000 more votes cast than there were identified, signed-in voters in Minnesota . Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's Secretary of State, said in effect "No, no no!", it was only somewhere under 30,000 votes.
That's right. Even Mark Ritchie, the chief executive of our electoral system, admitted that that out of a little over 2.75 million voters, there were nearly 30,000 more votes cast than there were identified, signed-in voters. That's a little over a percent of the entire voting pool. Over one in a hundred.
That's over double the margin between the candidates in this year's governor race.
That's an awful lot of votes that, at first glance, via incompetence or fraud, and it really doesn't matter which at this point, seem to have no connection with real, signed-in humans that showed up at the polls.
By Minnesota law, this needs to be taken care of. And it needs to be done before any recount takes place, to make sure that we're dealing with real numbers, not inflated/mistake-driven/fraudulent ones.
As Mitch said, this is a big deal. If the number of ballots cast this year without the person signing in is similar to 2008, that's easily more than enough to overturn Dayton's lead.
This is why having an honest Secretary of State is vitally important to having clean elections. Unfortunately, we don't have an honest Secretary of State right now.
What we have, however, are thousands of motivated voters who showed up at polls in Ramsey, Hennepin and St. Louis counties who stood in line, got registered on Election Day, and who then voted for Mark Dayton and Mark Dayton alone. That's extremely odd and should be questioned.
Here's the section of Minnesota's election law that covers reconcilliation:
Subd. 2. Excess ballots . If two or more ballots are found folded together like a single ballot, the election judges shall lay them aside until all the ballots in the box have been counted. If it is evident from the number of ballots to be counted that the ballots folded together were cast by one voter, the election judges shall preserve but not count them. If the number of ballots in one box exceeds the number to be counted, the election judges shall examine all the ballots in the box to ascertain that all are properly marked with the initials of the election judges. If any ballots are not properly marked with the initials of the election judges, the election judges shall preserve but not count them; however, if the number of ballots does not exceed the number to be counted, the absence of either or both sets of initials of the election judges does not, by itself, disqualify the vote from being counted and must not be the basis of a challenge in a recount. If there is still an excess of properly marked ballots, the election judges shall replace them in the box, and one election judge, without looking, shall withdraw from the box a number of ballots equal to the excess. The withdrawn ballots shall not be counted but shall be preserved as provided in subdivision 4.
This is pretty straightforward. If there are more ballots in the box than there are signatures on the sign-in sheets for the precinct, then the election judge shall randomly pick ballots from the box until the number of ballots matches the number of signatures on the sign-in sheets.
Here's part of Chairman Sutton's statement :
"The most basic right of our election system is one person, one vote. We cannot have a system that allows more votes to be counted than legal voters. After the 2008 election, estimates varied that there were between 17,000 and 30,000 or more ballots than total voters. In 2009, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie pledged to match voter registration with canvassing board results to within a thousand. Ritchie has had two years to address this issue and yet we're receiving reports today from election judges stating they did not reconcile the ballots cast with the number of signatures on the polling roster on Election Night 2010. These reports raise concerns about the instructions and written guides given to election judges by the Secretary of State's office as to the statutorily required reconciliation procedures for Election Day but more importantly, raise serious questions about the integrity of the result of the election.
"Phantom votes have no place in the final vote count. There is a clear statutory remedy that must be followed, namely, that excess phantom ballots are removed from the certified vote count. Until reconciliation has been completed in each precinct, the legislatively mandated recount cannot begin. Today's petition is of course within the legal framework of the canvassing process and the recount. We are seeking the court's assurance that only legally cast ballots are counted. The next governor should be seated on January 3 with an outcome that has followed the letter of the law," said Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton.
"It is incumbent upon our election system to count each and every legally cast ballot and not include phantom ballots in the vote count. Our petition today is simply asking the Supreme Court to confirm that the number of votes matches the total number of voters on Election Day, as required by state law and that election officials follow the clear statutory remedy for the removal of phantom votes before the results are certified," added Republican Party of Minnesota Deputy Chairman Michael Brodkorb.
If people don't like the remedy prescribed by law, then their only remedy is to have legislators change how the law is written before the next election. It's too late to change the remedy for this election because the recount is almost ready to start.
This remedy was anticipated, as this affidavit shows:
State law requires judges on election night to determine the proper number of ballots to be counted and, if necessary, conduct "reconcilliation" before producing a "summary statement" of results to the county auditor that, among, other things, identifies "the number of individuals that voted at the election in the precinct." Minnesota Stat. 204.C20, subd. 1 and 204.C24, subd. 1(c). That process ensures that the numbers of ballots counted actually equals the numbers of voters who have signed the polling roster plus the voters who signed and registered on Election Day.
State law has long recognized that it is possible that more ballots may be cast than number of voters signed in and legally registered to vote. This is an anticipated event that state law requires local election judges to address on election day. If there are more ballots cast than the number of registered voters who sign in, the law requires that the number of ballots counted from the precinct to be reduced to equal the number of voters who signed in and registered through a prescribed procedure (i.e. reconcilliation)."
If the Minnesota Supreme Court doesn't follow the solution prescribed by law, then I'll take note of who votes to create their own solution, then work the next 2 yrs. to get those justices defeated. The rule of law is the rule of law and it must be obeyed.
Posted Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:01 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Nov-10 12:43 AM
I know what the law says-- you've quoted it-- but I still think that if ballot box stuffing took place, then the ballots should be searched to find these people who voted for Dayton and nobody else. If all of those ballots are together in the pile, they should be thrown out, rather than picking at random.
Comment 2 by eric z at 20-Nov-10 09:07 PM
Minnesota GOP as usual under Sutton and Brodkorb. Making everybody's shoes wet and yellow except their own.
They are unmatched.
Ghailani Verdict a Dark Stain on Obama's, Holder's Records
When the verdict on Ahmed Ghailani is reviewed by historians, it will be seen as a dark stain on President Obama's and Attorney General Holder's records . Rep. Peter King didn't mince words when talking about the verdict:
"I am disgusted at the total miscarriage of justice today in Manhattan's federal civilian court. In a case where Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was facing 285 criminal counts, including hundreds of murder charges, and where Attorney General Eric Holder assured us that 'failure is not an option,' the jury found him guilty on only one count and acquitted him of all other counts including every murder charge.
"This tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama Administration's decision to try al-Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.
"This case was doomed from the beginning when the judge excluded DOJ's key witness who admitted selling the explosives to Ghailani. Where is the justice for the more than 200 people killed and 4,000 injured in the terrorist bombings of our U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?
"This is a tragic wake-up call to the Obama Administration to immediately abandon its ill-advised plan to try Guantanamo terrorists like the admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal civilian courts. We must treat them as wartime enemies and try them in military commissions at Guantanamo.
"As the next Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, I intend to hold hearings and conduct the necessary oversight on this critical homeland security issue in the 112th Congress."
It's tragic that Holder didn't try Ghailani in a military tribunal. That's what happens when your ideological blinders steer you away from doing the right thing.
This NY Times article brings the damnation to Holder's decisionmaking:
Of all the potential evidence against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, one thing that was never introduced or considered during his trial was Mr. Ghailani's own words about his role in the 1998 bombing of the American Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
He did not speak at his trial. But he had previously discussed, in a 2007 interrogation while being detained at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, how he had gotten caught up in what turned out to be a Qaeda plot.
These statements were never presented to the jury, which on Wednesday acquitted Mr. Ghailani of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder. Mr. Ghailani's lawyers, who argued that their client was duped into helping Al Qaeda, said the statements were coerced, untrustworthy and inadmissible.
This should be all that's needed to terminate Eric Holder. He's backed himself, and this administration, into a corner. Clarice Feldman explains the dilemma in this article :
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will probably remain in military detention without trial for the foreseeable future, according to Obama administration officials.
The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.
The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.
Considering their options, there's really just one real option in dealing with these terrorists. That's with military tribunals. Unfortunately, that's the option this administration has ruled out.
Hopefully, we'll get a real administration in place in 2 years, one that's serious about dealing with captured terrorists. The Obama administration has shown a willingness to kill terrorists on the battlefield. Unfortunately, they haven't shown a willingness to prosecute terrorists.
Unfortunately, I don't anticipate that day coming anytime soon.
Posted Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:26 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Nov-10 02:56 PM
A "dark stain"? Raaaacist!
Chairman Gottwalt
The first thing I thought when I read this press release was "It's about time." Here's the press release I'm referring to:
Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, has accepted an appointment to chair the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee .
Gottwalt, who recently won election to a third term, has served on House HHS committees and other key HHS groups as a member of the minority. He sponsored numerous reform-minded initiatives and said his new leadership position will give him a chance to advance common-sense solutions. The state estimated his Healthy Minnesota Plan bill could save more than $110 million over two years, while paying hospitals and providers better and providing coverage to low income Minnesotans.
"The need for true reform in HHS could not be more clear," Gottwalt said. "We face significant budget challenges in the upcoming session and I am eager to get to work on sustainable solutions. We are in great need of a new approach. Our current approach to HHS services is making many promises we cannot keep with money we do not have. I am honored to serve as chair of this important committee."
Gottwalt accepted his appointment one day after the new Republican majority announced it was streamlining the committee structure in both bodies of the Legislature. The new design reduces legislative panels by about one-third, to 24 House committees and 16 in the Senate.
Legislative leaders said the changes are a first step to reduce the cost of government while improving productivity and making the process more transparent. The plan also emphasizes committee alignment between the House and Senate, making it easier to track legislation.
I saw this promotion coming. In fact, I would've been upset if Rep. Gottwalt wouldn't get a committee chairmanship. Steve's been ahead of the game in terms of health care reform.
Unlkike Obamacare, Steve's Healthy Minnesota Plan actually lower health care costs because it eliminates cost shifting. Fully implemented, Steve's HMP will save hundreds of millions of dollars compared with what's spent right now on MinnesotaCare.
Most importantly, this committee assignment gives Rep. Gottwalt a vital role in final budget negotiations towards the end of session. By keeping the HHS budget under control, Minnesota's budget won't skyrocket out of control.
The thing that Minnesotans will notice now that Republicans have gavels is that Republicans are the Solutions Party. Had the MSM done its job, people would've noticed that months ago. Steve Gottwalt will be one of the fastest rising stars in the House GOP. It'll be fun watching the Strib's reporters and columnists trip over their tongues in describing Steve Gottwalt's, Mike Beard's and Mary Kiffmeyer.
Posted Friday, November 19, 2010 8:42 AM
No comments.
Dayton's Whining
It's official: Sen. Dayton has started whining about the recount process:
DFLer Mark Dayton lambasted (politely) the GOP's move into court this morning, saying the party "is challenging the integrity of our election process."
In an interview on Fargo radio station KFGO, the former U.S. Senator said the Republicans' petition to the state Supreme Court to order local election officials to doublecheck Election Day vote totals "seems strange to me" and that the party is skating on "pretty thin ice."
Continuing the ice metaphor, he recalled his days as a hockey player, saying, " it's sort of like you can lose the game six to four, and then you ask the judge to throw all ten goals into the lottery and you pull out six of them and hope that those are yours rather than the other team's."
He added, "It seems strange to me but I just live here."
Sen. Dayton is right. The MNGOP is challenging the integrity of Mark Ritchie's administration of Minnesota's election system. They're challenging the system because Mark Ritchie admitted the system is corrupt.
Let's remember what Ritchie said. After the 2008 election, Minnesota Majority, who's done great work on this issue, said that there were 40,000 more ballots cast than there were signatures on the signin sheets. Ritchie disagreed, saying that at most, there were 17,000-30,000 more ballots cast than signatures on the signin sheets.
What I know for certain is that at least eleven election judges stepped forward and signed affidavits saying that didn't happen yet. Until reconcilliation happens, any recount effort will include ballots that weren't legally cast, making any recount an exercise in illegitimacy. Until the ballot counts are right, we aren't doing a legitimate recount.
It's time Sen. Dayton learned that Republicans take the rule of law seriously. If Sen. Dayton gets upset when people follow the rule of law, then he's got some serious issues.
I wrote here what the law demands:
Subd. 2. Excess ballots. If two or more ballots are found folded together like a single ballot, the election judges shall lay them aside until all the ballots in the box have been counted. If it is evident from the number of ballots to be counted that the ballots folded together were cast by one voter, the election judges shall preserve but not count them. If the number of ballots in one box exceeds the number to be counted, the election judges shall examine all the ballots in the box to ascertain that all are properly marked with the initials of the election judges. If any ballots are not properly marked with the initials of the election judges, the election judges shall preserve but not count them; however, if the number of ballots does not exceed the number to be counted, the absence of either or both sets of initials of the election judges does not, by itself, disqualify the vote from being counted and must not be the basis of a challenge in a recount. If there is still an excess of properly marked ballots, the election judges shall replace them in the box, and one election judge, without looking, shall withdraw from the box a number of ballots equal to the excess. The withdrawn ballots shall not be counted but shall be preserved as provided in subdivision 4.
That procedure is found in Minnesota code 204C.20, subd. 2. It's extremely straightforward and easy to follow. Whether Sen. Dayton likes that law or not, the reality is that that's the law and it will be followed.
The DFL is spinning reconcilliation as disenfranchising voters. The opposite is true. Letting illegally cast ballots stay in the ballot piles disenfranchises voters who followed the law.
There's something else that must get asked, namely, how does a voter stand in line waiting to vote, then forget to sign the signin sheet?
Sen. Dayton is taking to the airwaves in an attempt to make it seem inevitable that he'll be Minnesota's next governor:
As for, Emmer's petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court and a request to the State Canvassing Board to change the recount rules, Dayton said Emmer and the Republican Party know they're way behind.
"They know they're way behind," Dayton said . "It's just throwing spit balls at the wall to see which ones will stick."
Dayton currently leads Emmer by nearly 8,800 votes.
Sen. Dayton couldn't be more wrong. I don't know that Tom Emmer is "way behind." I know that the recount starts with Mark Dayton with 0 votes and with Tom Emmer with 0 votes. I further know that if votes are counted in the recount for which there aren't signatures on the sign-in sheets, those are improperly counted ballots.
I'd also argue that Tom Emmer isn't asking for a change in the recount rules. I'd argue that he's simply asking that Minnesota state law be applied prior to the start of the recount.
Let's remember that that 8,800 vote margin isn't based on properly cast ballots. It's based on ballots that haven't been properly cast.
Regardless of the outcome of this recount, fairminded Minnesotans who work hard and play by the rules will insist that the rules be followed. Thus far, the DFL doesn't appear interested in following the rules.
In my opinion, that will hurt the DFL in 2012.
Posted Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:44 PM
Comment 1 by G-Man at 21-Nov-10 04:25 AM
The next step is educating fair-minded Minnesotan's about the rules. Emmer, Sutton, and company need to out flank the DFL PR machine about the reconciliation law ; and Ritchie's failure to follow it. I give Sutton credit for his radio interview with Chris Baker. It gave KTLK a sound bite for it's hourly news break all day long. They need to keep this up and get their sound bites on the commercials for the evening news.
Reconciliation is about protecting the honest voter. One voter, one vote. Make it clear that the rush to recount is an attempt to count illegal votes. So why would the DFL be so insistent about counting these votes? Do they know how they got there -- and who they help?
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 21-Nov-10 12:35 PM
There is the primary question. We know for a fact that Mark Ritchie is responsible for the fact that reconciliation did NOT happen in many precincts. The question is, though, how did those extra votes appear in the count? I find it hard to believe that 40,000 votes is an itty bitty oopsie. It looks a lot more like deliberate fraud.
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 22-Nov-10 02:11 AM
The one thing I'm sure of is that if nothing else, Richie needs the practice.
Comment 4 by eric z at 23-Nov-10 12:40 AM
The idiots got waxed:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/109976869.html
It was the GOP being the GOP - Wasting everyone's time.
Consistency you can count on.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-10 02:58 AM
It's the DFL & progressives saying that the law means whatever a small group of judges say it is. Forget about how the law is written. That's irrelevant to the DFL. What's relevant to the DFL is what they think the law should read. Forget about what the legislature wrote into the legislation. Forget that a governor signed legislation into law. All that matters is what a group of unaccountable bureaucrats think.
Shame on you, Eric. I thought you were a man of integrity. That's the last time I make that mistake.
Weekend Roundup
During this morning's At Issue, I was reminded why Jim Oberstar got dumped by the people of the Eighth District. Jim Oberstar expressed his disgust with the audience at the DECC for his debate with Congressman-Elect Chip Cravaack.
To this day, Oberstar still doesn't think that his vote for Cap and, Trade turned off voters in the Eighth District. At minimum, Oberstar doesn't let on that his Cap and Trade vote mattered. Having covered that race closely, I know Oberstar's vote on Cap and Trade led to his undoing.
It's stunning that someone who's represented his district for almost 40 years doesn't understand his district that well.
The other thing that came through during Hauser's interview with Rep. Oberstar was Oberstar's anger on his health care vote. Rep. Oberstar expressed his anger for not getting credit for the Hyde Amendment. Rep. Oberstar said that he'd cast 338 votes that protected human life. What Rep. Oberstar didn't talk about is that his vote for Obamacare was a vote for taxpayer funding of abortion.
It's also stunning that Rep. Oberstar still hasn't called Chip Cravaack to congratulate him on his victory. It's obvious that Rep. Oberstar hasn't gotten over his stunning defeat. It's equally obvious that Rep. Oberstar hasn't figured it out that his defeat is owed directly to his ignoring the unionized mineworkers.
Rep. Oberstar needs to man up and admit that he was defeated by Chip Cravaack, an upstart who ran a brilliant campaign simply by listening to the people of the Eighth District. Rep. Oberstar also needs to stop acting like an elitist who thinks he should've been able to retire at his choosing and hand the 'keys to the kingdom' to the person of his choosing. That isn't how democracies work.
Apparently, however, that's how things are supposed to work in Rep. Oberstar's fiefdom. Thankfully, Minnesotans disrupted Lord Oberstar's plans and installed Chip Cravaack, someone who got elected by listening to the people.
Posted Monday, November 22, 2010 8:13 AM
No comments.
Sen. Feinstein's Faux Crisis
This am, Sen. Dianne Feinstein's op-ed carries with it an ominous tone, one that isn't justified in my opinion. Here's what Sen. Feinstein said that isn't justified:
A year ago this week, American officials wrapped up a two-day inspection of a Russian strategic missile base at Teykovo, 130 miles northeast of Moscow, where mobile SS-25 intercontinental ballistic missiles are deployed.
Twelve days later, their Russian counterparts wrapped up a two-day inspection at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, home to a strategic bomb wing.
These inspections are noteworthy because they are the last to be conducted under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, which expired in December 2009. No American inspectors have set foot on a Russian nuclear base since, depriving us of key information about Russian strategic forces.
Worse, if Republicans in the Senate succeed in delaying ratification of the New START agreement, a distinct possibility, it may be months before American inspectors get another look at Russian nuclear weapons.
What's dismaying to me is that Sen. Feinstein is attempting to blame Republicans for the Democrats' failure. That isn't warranted based on this post on the White House's blog. Here's a portion of President Obama's opening statement:
Finally, this day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia, the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, to pursue responsible global leadership. Together, we are keeping our commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which must be the foundation for global non-proliferation.
While the New START treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey. As I said last year in Prague, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts. And going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with Russia on reducing both our strategic and tactical weapons, including non-deployed weapons.
President Obama made that speech 7 months ago. Had Democrats wanted to get START ratified, perhaps it shouldn't have shut down the Senate all of August and October and most of September. Perhaps, they would've been better served holding hearings.
Inattentiveness on the Democrats' part shouldn't constitute a crisis on the Republicans' part. In short, Feinstein's Democrats shouldn't have waited months and months, then expected Republicans to exactly do what Sen. Feinstein tells them to do. Frankly, Sen. Kerry should've called hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May and gotten it ratified months before the August recess.
Here's the closing paragraph of Sen. Feinstein's op-ed:
It would be foolish and wrong to let partisan politics bring this era of cooperation to an end. Worse, it would make us blind to the true size and capabilities of the Russian arsenal. There is no question this would weaken our national security. That would be indefensible.
Sen. Feinstein, what's indefensible is waiting 7 months without conducting a hearing on the START Treaty. The Democrats own the gavels in the Senate. If this treaty is that important, why didn't John Kerry, the committee chair, conduct hearings months ago? Why didn't his committee give its ratification long ago so the full Senate could ratify it before the election?
This isn't really a crisis. Sen. Feinstein just wants people to think it's a crisis.
Posted Monday, November 22, 2010 9:22 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 22-Nov-10 12:06 PM
Aren't the Democrats the party who thought that Iraq had done nothing with no arms inspectors for five years. I mean we can trust the Russians more than Iraq?
The big problem was that the previous President thought I didn't need a new treaty because I was going to do a missle shield and maintain a strong defense. Too bad this President wanted a worthless piece of paper instead of national security.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
SCOMN in the crosshairs?
I vehemently disagree with this AP article when it says this:
Minnesota Supreme Court justices are deliberating over a Republican lawsuit casting doubt about whether the number of governor's race votes squares with rosters of voters.
The skirmish comes ahead of a presumed recount in a race where Democrat Mark Dayton leads Republican Tom Emmer by 8,770 votes. Depending on what the court does, some votes could be disqualified.
At issue is whether election administrators neglected to follow the law and match signed polling place rosters with final vote tallies. Some say they resorted to using generic receipts instead, which they argue is allowed under state rules.
What's at issue isn't "whether election administrators" ignored the law. What's at issue is whether liberal justices like Alan Page are willing to ignore existing state law. If the justices rule that an administrative rule trumps signed legislation, then they will have essentially gutted the legislative process. If that's their ruling, they will have essentially have argued that bureaucrats and justices make the laws and that legislatures and governors are essentially obsolete in making the laws citizens are expected to abide by.
If there's a more absurd ruling than today's ruling, I'm hard-pressed to think of it.
This MPR article highlights the absurdity:
The main arguments centered around whether the Supreme Court should directly interpret what is considered an out-of-date and ambiguous law or give credence to a rule created by the secretary of state that appeared to violate part of that law. Emmer's attorneys argued that the court should follow the direct interpretation of the law and require election workers to count the number of voter signatures to make sure it matches up with the number of ballots cast on election night.
My first question is why any law that's still on the books is considered "out-of-date". If people don't agree with the law, then it should be rewritten. Any justices who ruled against Tom Emmer got this badly wrong.
It isn't their right to ignore written law. Their job is to rule on whether existing law is constitutional. In this instance, it clearly was.
When bureacrats' ruling has more bearing on election law than legislators and governors, then it's clear that bureaucrats have overstepped their authority. The minute that happens, the legislature needs to step in and limit the bureaucrats' authority.
Hopefully, the new GOP legislators are writing that legislation as I'm writing this post. We pay legislators to write laws. We don't pay administrative law judges to tell us that existing law isn't relevant. Also, we don't pay Supreme Court justices to write new law. Theoretically, we pay appellate court justices to tell us what the law says. PERIOD.
Based on this afternoon's ruling, that isn't what the Supreme Court did today. Considering the fact that this ruling dealt with the election of our governor, this ruling is all the more shameful.
BTW, I'll have further comments if and when the justices publish an opinion. They owe use that much so we can at least figure out how they reached this opinion.
Posted Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:01 AM
Comment 1 by Jeff Rosenberg at 23-Nov-10 11:27 AM
This really is not difficult. The statute is obsolete for a simple reason: It refers to practices no longer in use. The statute calls for ballots to be counted using "signed voter's certificates" or "the number of names entered in the election register." The trouble is, we don't use either voter's certificates or election registers anymore.
So, almost 30 years ago, the Secretary of State issued a rule to keep the procedures current. The rule says that just because we don't use voter's certificates or election registers doesn't mean we don't have to reconcile ballots. I would think you'd approve of that part. In the absence of either of those materials, the rule says, we can instead use either voter receipts -- for which a voter must sign -- or the number of names signed on the roster.
The Emmer campaign's complaint is that counties are reconciling ballots using a different method than what it wants. They apparently want us to use non-existent election registers.
Comment 2 by Donna Foster at 23-Nov-10 11:47 AM
Where can I get a history of Alan Page's "liberal" record? I have a neighbor who likes him just because she is a football fan. She has no idea how he decides colurt cases. I'd love to prove to her that he isn't who she thinks he is.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-10 01:33 PM
You're right, Jeff. This really isn't difficult. The Secretary of State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally issue rules changing a specific provision if it's part of signed legislation.
I've talked with several election judges who've told me that they do the reconcilliation. They've all said that they & they do the reconcilliation using the sign-in sheets. Some of the judges say they also do the reconcilliation with the receipts.
If Ritchie wanted to use receipts instead of the sign-in sheets, he needed to have the law changed.
Issuing a ruling doesn't cut it. The SecState doesn't have the authority.
Comment 4 by Jeff Rosenberg at 23-Nov-10 02:14 PM
Everybody does reconciliation, Gary. It's the law. Nobody's claiming otherwise.
The question is, HOW do we do reconciliation? Because the law uses language that is obsolete, the Secretary of State issued a rule updating that language. And that's all.
I know you hate Ritchie, but this has nothing to do with him. That rule has been in place since 1981.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-10 03:59 PM
The SecState doesn't have the authority to issue a new rule. If a new rule is needed, then it's the legislature's responsibility to change things. Nowhere in the state constitution does it give the SecState the authority to rewrite legislation. It's certainly within his responsibility to recommend changes. Had Ritchie done that, I wouldn't be criticizing him.
Simply put, it's about his acting without the constitutional authority. Nothing more, nothing less.
FYI- I'm not just upset with Ritchie. I'm upset with anyone, Pawlenty-appointed justices included, who's ignored these constitutional principles.
Response 4.2 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-10 05:16 PM
PS- We don't know that reconcilliation is always done. Yes, we know it's the law but we also know that Minnesota Majority said 40,000 more ballots were cast than there were signatures. Further, we know that Mr. Ritchie said during the 2008 recount that "at most, there were 30,000 more ballots cast" than there were signatures on the sign-in sheets.
After hearing that, how can you say that nobody is claiming we don't do reconcilliation? Yes, there are plenty of people saying reconcilliation doesn't consistently happen.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 23-Nov-10 06:42 PM
Jeff:
The basic premise of the lawsuit was find out just how many people voted before we count ballots.
I'll be a little alarmed if the Secretary of State announces 2.23 million ballots were counted, but according to election judges only 2.2 million people voted.
Or don't you care that there's 30,000 extra votes running around. If there are where did they come in. Because if they showed in 2008, in 2010, they're likely to showup in 2012.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by J. Ewing at 24-Nov-10 01:59 PM
Part of the problem is that the training materials published by SOS Ritchie-- the partisan hack-- do not instruct on the delicate art of reconciliation at all, though many local venues stress not only reconciliation, but a THREE-way reconcilation of ballots in the ballot counter, ballot receipts and signatures. If necessary, we count actual ballots for a "four-way" check. Ritchie claims it is no big deal if we're off by 5 to 7 votes per precinct, but the results of the governor's race would be overturned by just TWO ballots per precinct.
Mr. Emmer has said that this ruling is not the final say on the matter, and can't be. We should hope not. Here is my question for the great minds of the SCOMN: If there are more ballots than there are voters who signed the register, where did all of those extra ballots come from? If there are more voter receipts than there are voters who signed the register (but the same number of ballots as receipts) where did all the extra receipts come from? SOMEBODY is gaming the system, someplace. Until we find out who and how, the credibility of our elections and election process will, and deserves to be, very badly tarnished.
Comment 7 by eric z at 25-Nov-10 02:00 AM
My recollection is that Pawlenty elevated the Chief Justice to her post and then named her replacement for the regular seat; both of whom were instrumental in helping him with his unallotment capers. The appearance is this latest thing is so outlandish that even these individuals cannot stomach it; or am I wrong and it was a divided court? It surely was not a case of justice delayed being justice denied; at least there was a sense of promptness as decorous under the circumstances. It is too bad the GOP petitioner camp stalled for no good reason but only to be nasty soreheads; but it is good the Court slapped them down cleanly and quickly.
Dayton Didn't Get the Memo
Based on this article , it isn't a stretch to think that Sen. Dayton wasn't paying attention to Minnesota's voters. Here's why I've reached that opinion:
Democrat Mark Dayton says he's sticking with his plan to tax top incomes as he contemplates a state budget even as the undecided governor's race went before Minnesota's high court on Monday.
He said Monday that he and Democratic minority leaders talked taxes, health and welfare policy while the state Supreme Court heard arguments over Republican Tom Emmer's petition for proof that the number of votes and voters matches. A recount is pending.
Dayton can talk about tax increases all he'd like. It won't increase taxes a single penny. It'd be interesting to hear him justify what's being spent right now, much less increasing spending. Factor in that that increased spending couldn't be paid for without a tax increase.
It's worth noting that the GOP legislature won't pass a tax increase. Voters voted the DFL out of their majorities in the House and Senate because they passed too many tax increases and they passed too big of spending increases.
Frankly, I don't think the public trusts the DFL on the economy. Frankly, after listening to the DFL's plan of subsidizing green businesses and relying on oversized bonding bills, that's understandable.
They seem averse to making the entire economy work. Mitch's post highlights why people don't trust the DFL on economic issues:
It disturbs me, personally, how frequently "administrative law" ; law as interpreted by bureaucrats ; overrides the law as passed by elected representatives of the people.
The worst example I've seen remains the City of Saint Paul's administrative lynching of "Saint Paul Firearms", a gun shop that briefly opened on Snelling Avenue. The store obeyed all applicable laws ; exceeded them, at least in terms of security, in every particular ; but some of the religiously DFL-voting neighbors got the victorian vapors over the thought of sharing the neighborhood with a gun store.
So they didn't bother with real courts; they went to the "Administrative Law" court. And they got the ruling they wanted; the ruling that said "forget Minnesota law, to say nothing of the United States Constitution; bureaucrats see it the way you want to see it!" And so the store was forced to close, destroying an honest entrepreneur's investment of his life's savings in the process.
The thought that DFL activists ignored the U.S. Constitution months after the Supreme Court ruled that cities didn't have the right to ignore the Second Amendment through city ordinances and other gimmickry is disturbing but it isn't surprising.
This is SOP for the DFL. If they don't get their way in the legislature, they'll attempt to get their way via executive order. If they can't get it that way, then they'll attempt to get their way through the courts. If these things fail, then they'll pass legislation that ignores the Constitution.
In 2012, conservatives should argue that Democrats, from President Obama to Sen. Reid to Gov. Dayton, don't have a clue about building a real economy. Thus far, that trio is almost making that argument too easy to make.
(Somewhere, Bill Clinton is laughing hysterically everytime he thinks of that trio.)
Posted Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:38 PM
Comment 1 by Triple Threat at 23-Nov-10 08:54 PM
If the legislature does not pass a tax increase, then Dayton can't raise taxes, right?
The legislature can keep spending at current levels and Dayton can veto the budget and they can go round and round. But a government shutdown is Dayton's only option if the Republicans stand firm.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Nov-10 12:14 AM
You're right in saying that the executive branch doesn't have the constitutional authority to raise taxes unilaterally. At this point, Dayton & the DFL are in a difficult position because they want to exert pressure on the GOP legislative majorities while advocating policies that a majority of Minnesotans don't agree with.
