Three-judge panel 'affirms fairness and accuracy of the election'

by: Joe Bodell

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 07:05:37 AM CDT

As for Tim Pawlenty's claim that he is entitled to ignore the court's will if he doesn't like the outcome (thus implying that he is somehow better suited to decide a court case than the court itself), it is unacceptable. Contact his office right now and make sure he knows that he is constitutionally required to issue that election certificate as soon as the State Supreme Court decides on Coleman's appeal, regardless of the result.

Telephone: (651) 296-3391
Toll Free: (800) 657-3717
E-mail: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

COURT AFFIRMS FAIRNESS AND ACCURARY OF THE ELECTION

p. 55: "The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the November 4, 2008 election was conducted fairly, impartially, and accurately."

p. 55: "There is no evidence of a systemic problem of disenfranchisement in the state's election system, including in its absentee-balloting procedures."

p. 56: "The citizens of Minnesota should be proud of their election system. Minnesota has one of the highest voter-participation rates in the country. The Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State and election officials throughout Minnesota's counties and cities are well-trained, fair, and conscientious and performed their duties admirably. Minnesota could not conduct elections without the hard work and diligence of its dedicated professionals and citizen volunteers, and the Court is proud of their service."

COURT RULES THAT FRANKEN RECEIVED THE MOST VOTES AND IS ENTITLED TO THE CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION

p. 26 (para. 157): "Franken received the highest number of lawfully cast ballots in the November 4, 2008 general election for United States Senator for the State of Minnesota and is entitled to receive the certificate of election."

p. 21 (para. 126): "Coleman received a total of 1,212,317 votes and Franken received a total of 1,212,629 votes in the race for United States Senator in the November 4, 2008 general election."

More highlights after the break.

COURT DISMISSES COLEMAN ALLEGATIONS OF "DOUBLE COUNTING"

p. 31: "Contestants claim that double counting of ballots occurred in ten Minneapolis precincts. They rely upon evidence that the number of votes counted during the recount was greater than the number of voters shown on the voter rosters. Contestants, however, have not sustained their burden of proof on this claim."

COURT REJECTS COLEMAN ATTEMPT TO THROW OUT 132 MINNEAPOLIS BALLOTS

p. 20 (para. 119): "The record contains no allegations or evidence of fraud or foul play with respect to the missing envelope of ballots. The record contains no evidence to suggest that the Election Day totals from Minneapolis 3-1 are unreliable. Every indication is that the Election Day totals from Minneapolis 3-1 are an accurate count of the ballots cast."

p. 20 (para. 120): "Given the evidence presented, the Court finds that 132 ballots from Minneapolis Precinct 3-1 were cast and properly counted on Election Day and were lost at some point after they were counted on Election Day but before the administrative recount."

COURT REJECTS COLEMAN'S "EQUAL PROTECTION" ARGUMENT, SAYING IT WOULD LEAD TO "ABSURD RESULT"

p. 38: "Equal protection . . . cannot be interpreted as raising every error in an election to the level of a constitutional violation. Although not ideal, errors occur in every election."

p. 39: "Equal protection does not guarantee a perfect election."

p. 42: "Counties and cities adopted different procedures and methods, consistent with their resources and personnel, in determining whether an absentee voter complied with the statutory requirements of Minnesota law. Election officials were governed by uniform laws and did not arbitrarily disregard the statutory elements of absentee voting in adopting these procedures."

p. 46: "The state-wide standards governing absentee voting in Minnesota are uniform and explicit and apply in every county and city in the state."

p. 49: "[T]he Court notes that Contestants' position would lead to an absurd result. Following Contestants' argument to its conclusion, the Court would be compelled to conclude that if one county mistakenly allowed felons to vote, then all counties would have to count the votes of felons."