On ballots cast at the voting booth, there are two issues. The review of the ballots reviewed in the hand recount that were challenged by one of the two campaigns -- some of those were counted on election day (and the challenger was trying to have them DQ'd), and others were not counted on election day (and the challenger was trying to get them counted). It is a fact that Coleman made many more frivilous challenges to those ballots, which temporarily took votes away from Franken and showed him seemingly further behind, but when those challenges were dropped, or the State Canvassing Board decided in Franken's favor on many of those Coleman challenges, Franken's caught up to Coleman. On those ballots, and the ballots that were not counted at all on election day (but included reasonable indicia of voter intent), so that the local or state Canvassing Boards ultimately accepted them, there really is no litigable dispute (the court won't substitute its judgment for the decision of an administrative body charged with the responsibility, where every decision was made by a 5-0 vote) except for the matter of the duplicate ballots.

On that issue, it has been common custom in all states with optical scanning machines for local election officials to create a duplicate ballot when a voter's ballot will not be read by the machine (for whatever reason). and those duplicate ballots are marked as such. With no evidence at all that there are any duplicate ballots favoring Franken that are proven to have been counted more than once -- remember, SFC, that accusation and evidence are NOT the same thing -- and with nothing other than some very slight discrepancies between votes cast and votes counted in a handful of precints (amounting to a 10 - 15 vote discrepancy in the entire State from what I have read) which have been grossly exaggerated by Coleman and the right wing radio media, and which do NOT involve more votes being counted than were cast in any precinct in Minnesota, Coleman asserts that the election should be overturned or redone. Unless some evidence emerges in the nex 2-3 weeks (and absolutely nothing has surfaced yet despite having over two months to put his "case" together, if you don't count hyperbole and wingnut fantasy), there is no court in America that will substitite its judgment for the Canvassing Board on this issue (which, as already noted, was bipartisan, yet voted unanimously on every issue it considered).

Then there were the two groups of uncounted absentee ballots -- the ones Coleman fought very hard to exclude from being counted before he fell behind. One group was ballots which the local Canvassing Boards all agreed must be excluded because they failed to satisfy some overt requirement for an Absentee Ballot to be valid (lacking signatures, etc.) -- where a third statewide review of the same 10,000+ rejected ballots has changed two or three such ballots throughout the entire state from being "DQ'd correctly on election day" to "DQ'd incorrectly on Election Day" (and it's not clear yet if those ballots were cast for Coleman because they have not been opened yet, although they were from counties where Norm did well). That leaves 222 votes to go, assuming there were 3 and they were all cast for Coleman. Coleman now claims that 600 or more such ballots should be counted -- all 600 having been rejected by local Canvassing Boards after three reviews, all 600 having been ballots that Coleman fought to exclude from the count before he lost the recount, and all 600 ballots coming from precincts where Coleman did well on election day (and which the Coleman camp may already have determined are likely to be Republican voters, because the names are known, and there is known registration info, etc., available to the campaigns which they have ressearched) -- while at the same time asserting that it is OK not to count over 10,000 similarly rejected absentee ballots (the majority of which come from areas where Franken was much stronger than Coleman on Election Day) would be excluded. Norm's pitch is a blatant violation of equal protection, and the court has already made it clear that, in the unlikely (at least in my view) event that it were to rule that a special master appointed by the Court should independently review the 600 absentee ballots that Coleman has asked be counted, it will also rule that the special master must also review all of the other absentee ballots that were excluded on a similar basis, and not just the ones Coleman cherrypicked (which would favor Franken, who won almost 60% of all absentee votes counted state wide . . . and because a disproportionate amount of the absentee ballots that were rejected came from counties where Franken kicked Coleman's ass). Of course, in public and in the media, Coleman is advocating, alternatively, counting all absentee ballots, regardless of why they were rejected (so much for the "rule of law"), or having a do-over special election because too many ballots are in dispute (gee, I wonder why?) and the final tally was too close to let it stand without a do-over. Brilliant. I'm sure he would feel the same way if he had been ahead by 225 votes at the end of a full blown recount].

That leaves one last group of disputed ballots - the absentee ballots that the Canvassing Boards determined had been improperly or erroneously rejected, but which one of the two campaigns would not agree to count when the issue came up in the recount. This is the area of greatest unfairness, but the problem for Coleman is that it hurt Franken a lot more than it hurt Coleman, because Coleman was more aggressive in saying no to absentee ballots in strong Franken precincts than Franken was the other way around (and because absentee voters as a whole tended to favor Franken by a 10-20% margin). Of course, it was Coleman's legal challenge that led the Minnesota Supreme Court to rule that ballots which the Canvassing Boards acknowledged were erroneously rejected would be counted only if both campaign's agreed to it (subject, as always under Minnesota law, to the right of an individual voter to challenge in Court (after the recount is completed and certified) the exclusion of his or her absentee ballot if it was erroneously rejected -- and, in fact, 65 Franken supporters have filed just such a suit, which is a winner, which will increase Franken's lead to 280, and which likely result in sanctions against Coleman for frivilously challenging the inclusion of their ballots. And Coleman rejected a boatload of those kinds of ballots in Franken's strongholds. Also, what happened in the recount, whether it is fair or not to either candidate, was consistent with the original ruling of Minnesota Supreme Court -- in other words, the Canvassing Board and the campaigns followed and implemented the Minnesota Supreme Court decision (and the outcome from doing that, to Coleman's chagrin, was to Extend Franken's lead from 45 votes to 225 votes (from those 900 absentee ballots that both campaigns agreed were erroneously rejected and should have been counted). There is no chance on earth that a procedure which was conducted in strict accordance with a freshly written Minnesota Supreme Court decision (and in which the Coleman camp affirmatively accepted some, and affirmatively rejected other, such ballots) will be reversed by that same Court.

In sum, Coleman's case lacks any supporting evidence, represents a 180 degree reversal of the various legal positions he took at every important point after election day (until he fell behind, that is), and it is, plain and simple, a loser, a stall, a prayer that he can muck things up enough to get the court to throw up its hands in digust, and order a do-over. It is an insult to the Minnesotans who devoted time and energy to participating in a very thorough and transparent -- as in, a digital photo of every challenged ballot was made publicly available in the Minnesota media -- process. So my advice, Sarge, is to get use to the words "Senator Franken."

Losing your Senate seat by 225 votes out of 2 Million cast, after a painstakingly open and transparent statwide recount, when you were ahead by hundreds of votes on election day, is a stinging defeat. That must really hurt. Ouch!

Losing a longshot motion to strip a Minnesota state court of jurisdiction over a Minnesota statewide election held pursuant to Minnesota state law (albeit for a federal office) is not even close to a stinging defeat. It's more like a very minor tactical setback which only means that your bullshit election challenge will take another 3-4 weeks, and several million dollars more in legal fees, to play out, before it is rejected for the insulting bunch of crap that it is -- essentially asserting that your selective choice of a a small percentage of hte uncounted ballots, all from jurisdictions that favor you, and all ballots that you originally fought to reject, should be counted so as to give you a tiny margin of victory (while overlooking tens of thousands of other ballots that were similarly -- and more importantly, legally -- rejected) and the dedicated and honest work of hundreds of bipartisan election workers and a bipartisan 5 member state canvassing board that made its decisions unanimously in a completely transparent process.

I think it will be seen as a humiliating defeat, or a career-ending defeat, as opposed to a stinging defeat. Whatever history makes of it, it couldn't possibly have happened to a more deserving sleazy bum . . . I mean to a nicer guy. You can think through the ramifications of your humiliation in the apartment you have been living in for pennies a month in Washington, D.C., or in one of those $1000 suits that your political cronies bribed you with (and that probably cost you the election when you lied about it to the voters last summer). You should be ashamed of yourself, for your petty corruption and your vanity, for your inability to reconcile yourself to the fact that you lost, that Al Franken will be the new junior senator from Minnesota (and a major thorn in the side of right wing nuts everywhere) because you couldn't hold your precious senate seat as an incumbent, even with tens of millions of dollars in financial backing.

Now that's what I call a stinging defeat!!

I only hope the spirit of Paul Wellstone will tap into the vibe of your defeat, and his friend, Al Franken's, victory. I doubt anything would make him happier, short of seeing his family and friends again. I know I smile every time I think of Al Franken in the Senate. Surely the next decade will indeed be the Al Franken Decade!

1. In the MN Supreme Court decision that allowed the two campaigns to have say in whether or not to count an absentee ballot that the County Canvassing Board had determined was rejected erroneously, the Justices sought to prevent the campaigns from abusing that power by providing that a campaign would be subject to court imposed sanctions, such as fines, other penalties, etc., if the court, hearing an election contest brought by a voter whose ballot was wrongfully rejected (seeking to have that ballot counted) concluded that the applicable campaign had rejected that voter's absentee ballot without cause. The dissent ridiculed this to some extent -- the abusive campaign is only slapped if somebody bothers to bring a suit, which is by no means certain, and then the sanction does nothing to rectify all the ballots improperly rejected who don't bother to file suit. But MN law provide for voters to contest the rejection of hteir ballots after the final vote is certified, and that's what this suit is about.

2. In this case, Franken can be assumed to have a fair degree of certainty that these 64 ballots included votes for him. If more plaintiffs join the class, it is theoretically possible that Coleman will benefit, which seems to be the thrust of your concern. But Franken did much better with absentee voters than Coleman did because of Democratic GOTV efforts, etc., so it is likely, absent cherrypicking, that counting all of the improperly rejected ballots would help Franken.

3. The suit will result in 64 more votes for Franken, and may also give the MN courts the opportunity to impose some nice harsh sanctions on the Coleman campaign for abusing the process, which would not happen if this suit had not been brought.

Bottom line: MN state law -- and the specific process contemplated by the MN Supreme Court in its terrible decision allowing each campaign to veto ballots that the county canvassing boards determine had been erroneously rejected -- contemplated that exactly this type of suit might be filed, and would provide the platform for keeping the campaigns honest in exercising thatveto right. This suit will put those principles to the test. So worry not about the election -- Franken's victory will be upheld soon enough -- rather, enjoy the fact that the hammer is about to drop on the assholes in the Coleman campaign who have been playing politics with the most fundamental right that exists in a democracy -- the right to vote. They asked for it, now they are going to get it.

My sixth sense tells me that the GOP apparatus in MN cheated Franken out of a lot more votes than the numbers reflect. In particular, I am thinking of the absentee ballots which all sides did NOT agree were purely clerical error, but which should still be counted because America is a free society, and in a free society, minor, inconsequential errors in filling out ballots (which do involve the imprimatur of probable fraud) should not stand in the way of the exercise of the most fundamental right that exists in democracy -- the right to vote.

I think yet another positive aspect of Obama's election is that the federal government can finally pass some voting legislation that, in addition to having a title or name that implies real reform in making sure that voters are not deprived of their right to vote -- but actually does exactly the opposite (like the GOP sponsored voting legislation 5 years ago) -- actually does involve protecting voters, and especially minority voters, first time voters, and others (who tend to vote for Democrats, oddly enough) who are espcially vulnerable to GOP vote suppression shenanigans. Amen to that.

Why do I think it possible that some GOP operative, thinking that he or she would get away with it, removed Envelope #1 (with the 133 ballots) and disposed of it -- knowing, given the precinct, that it probably favored Franken) -- I hope it turns up, but it stinks, and it sounds awfully suspicious. Sounds like the Senate may have to decide who to seat.

All of that said, I completely that we need governmental investment in education on a scale never before undertaken, for the good of the nation. The again, I am very empathetic to the Swedish model of social democracy, which is looking better and better all the time. Milton Friedman left of us a legacy of intense economic calamity built on privatization of public functions and the evisceration of governmental oversight and investment, all of which made millionaires into billionaires, and the rest of us working longer and harder for less. Fark them, fark all of them. But we need to save the patient from dying from the acute effect of multiple bleeders before we treat the chronic mess that caused those bleeders to exist in the first place.

I see no reason why Franken should view this any differently. Unless he is satisfied that all votes have been fairly counted, he should fight this to the last available venue, which is the Democratically controlled Senate which is vested with the ultimate decision on who it is going to seat. The Constitution mandates that a political body will make the final decision if the opposing parties don't resolve a dispute over who won without the need to involve that political body. If this goes to the Senate, and Franken has a legitimate argument that he should be declared winner, as you know he will if he takes it that fat (whether based on disqualified provisional ballots, interpretations of undervotes or overvotes, etc.), you know he will win if it voted upon in the Senate. The GOP would do no less, you can be assured, if the shoe were on the other foot.

So I applaud the Franken campaign for fighting. When this is over, what will not be remembered is who was the nicest guy of the two (even though Franken would win that easily) or if the winner took the race in a manner that goes over some imaginary line that pundits draw when the other guy looks like he might win a close race. No, the only thing anybody will remember is who won, who gets to be seated as the senator from MN, and who gets to vote for SCOTUS appointments, cloture votes, budgets. universal health care, and som many other things of vital importance to all of us. I hope Franken fights to the finish, yields nothing to Coleman, and wins however it needs to get done. No cheating, but no pussing out either.