It's always interesting to see how it's always articles on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal that end up as evidence for the truth of an alleged fact. Somehow the journal's reporting, which usually relies on careful research, never makes the cut. It's also interesting how conveniently the article ignores that the recount was automatic under Minnesota law, and that Franken won the recount.
Don't confuse McG with the facts. It just makes him angry.
Here's what the Minnesota Supreme Court said (emphasis mine):
Quote:More than 2.9 million Minnesotans cast ballots in the November general election, including approximately 300,000 who voted or attempted to vote by absentee ballot. On November 18, 2008, the State Canvassing Board accepted the consolidated statewide canvassing report as showing that Coleman received 1,211,565 votes and that Franken received 1,211,359 votes for the office of United States Senator, a margin of 206 votes in Coleman‟s favor. Because the margin separating the two candidates was less than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes counted for that office, the State Canvassing Board directed the Minnesota Secretary of State‟s Office to oversee a manual recount, as required by Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 1(b)(1) (2008).
The statewide manual recount was conducted between November 19, 2008, and January 5, 2009, pursuant to instructions drafted by the Secretary of State‟s Office and approved by the State Canvassing Board after consultation with representatives of Coleman and Franken. During the recount, local election officials and the candidates reviewed the absentee ballot return envelopes that had been rejected on or before election day and agreed that some of them had been improperly rejected. See Coleman v. Ritchie, 758 N.W.2d 306, 308 (Minn. 2008). On January 3, 2009, the Secretary of State‟s Office opened and counted the 933 ballots identified during this process.1 On January 5, 2009, the State Canvassing Board certified the results of the election as 1,212,431 votes for Franken and 1,212,206 votes for Coleman, a margin of 225 votes in Franken‟s favor.
On January 6, 2009, appellants Coleman and Sheehan (hereinafter “Coleman”) filed a notice of election contest in Ramsey County District Court under Minn. Stat. § 209.021 (2008), contesting the election results certified by the State Canvassing Board and seeking a declaration that Coleman was entitled to the certificate of election as United States Senator. On January 12, 2009, under Minn. Stat. § 209.045 (2008), we appointed three judges to hear and determine the contest. Testimony in the trial commenced on January 26, 2009, and concluded on March 12, 2009. Coleman sought during trial to have additional absentee ballots counted. No claim of fraud in the election or during the recount was made by either party. At the conclusion of the trial, the court determined that 351 additional absentee ballot return envelopes satisfied the statutory requirements and ordered that these envelopes be opened and the ballots inside counted.
On April 13, 2009, the trial court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, finding that Franken received 1,212,629 votes and Coleman received 1,212,317 votes in the November 4, 2008 general election, a margin of 312 votes in Franken‟s favor. The court found that Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast in the election for United States Senator for the State of Minnesota and concluded that Franken was entitled to receive the certificate of election.
To sum up: the initial vote count had Coleman ahead by 206 votes. Because of the close margin, an automatic recount was ordered. After that manual recount, Franken jumped ahead by 225. Coleman objected, and the court agreed to count additional ballots. After those ballots were counted, Franken was even farther ahead than he was before (312 votes).
At that point, Coleman had pretty much run out of reasons to contest the vote count, since there were no allegations of fraud. He was left to argue that the state should have adhered to a "substantial compliance" test for absentee ballots rather than a "strict compliance" test -- in other words, if the ballots came close to the statutory requirements, the court should have counted them.
Oddly enough, that was pretty much Al Gore's position in the 2000 Florida recount. It is, therefore, passing strange that conservatives now want the Gore argument to prevail in Minnesota, given how unenthusiastic they were about that argument back in 2000. Oh well, I guess they've repented their past mistakes and admitted the error of their ways.
Unless Yankee or McGentrix plan on addressing the actual ruling by the court, this one is case closed. Some opinion article that is factually inaccurate vice the ruling of the court and the events that took place is the tombstone of their argument.
Well, to go on a bit of a tangent, was OJ really innocent? The court found that he was based on the evidence and the work of the lawyers. Did that make the "case closed"?
Lets look back at Bush v. Gore. How long have the liberals whined and bitched about that? Hell, some people still whine about it today. The court made a ruling, does that make it "case closed"?
Simply because a court made a decision that is legally binding does not mean that fraud was not committed. It only means that the court did not find the evidence either compelling or conclusive.
Reading through the case in the link provided, I did not see a good reasoning for court to make some of it's decisions based on old precedent. I will continue to hold the opinion that Franken is a whiny bitch that shouldn't be a senator and I am sure you guys will continue to hold that opinion that he deserves the seat for no other reason then he is not a Republican. Great basis for being in the Senate and supporting someone with a poor political background.