[ - NS]

Candidate          Votes   Percent %
Mark Dayton (D)   919,234    43.63
Tom Emmer (R)     910,380    43.21
Tom Horner (MNIP) 251,503    11.94

Source: Minnesota Secretary of State Unofficial Election Results at 3:11:28 PM on 11/3/2010

The above tally is unofficial, but the current margin, of less than half a percent, would trigger an automatic recount. I discussed, in greater detail, the contingencies required for a recount earlier this morning. I have several thoughts on the interim results as they relate to a potential recount.

A more complete article is available at: HowWillAmericaVote.com

I found the associated polling report at PolitickerNJ.com along with the relevant description excerpted below. I’ve admitted the likely voter result into our database, as outlined within our methodology.

Republican Christopher Christie leads Gov. Jon Corzine 39%-36% among definite voters, according to a poll conducted by Neighborhood Research, a survey firm run by conservative strategist Rick Shaftan. Independent Christopher Daggett is at 6%.

…

Among likely voters, Corzine leads Christie 37%-35%, with 6% for Daggett. [Emphasis added]

“If Corzine gets his liberal/urban/Democratic base together he’s going to open up a significant lead, forcing Christie to work the right,” Shaftan wrote in his analysis.

The poll was conducted between August 12-21 with a sample size of 319 and a margin of error of +/- 5.49%. The party breakout among respondents was 43% Democrat, 34% Republican, 23% unaffiliated.

Source: PolitickerNJ.com

There are some concerns about the sample size and the error that raise questions about the accuracy of this poll. For example, I highly doubt Christie has an approval rating of 20 favorable and 27 unfavorable; a very high rejection rate of over 50%. The most recent Quinnipiac University poll of New Jersey gave Christie a favorability of 42 and an unfavorable result of 26; a more reasonable rejection ratio of about 30%. The results of this Neighborhood Research (R) poll may in fact be accurate, but the noted anomalies are too numerous to warrant serious consideration.

Our projection remains unchanged due to the partisan affiliation of this newly inducted poll:

If this poll were to be included into our projection, both candidates would converge around 38% with a very slight advantage to Christie.

Virginia remained unchanged, polling wise. More in a week.

(cross posted at VoteForAmerica.net)

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar will be hosting a live statewide tele-town hall meeting to discuss making health care more affordable and answer questions from her constituents. Joining her will be Dr. Denis Cortese, CEO of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester and Mary Wakefield, the highest ranking nurse in the federal government.

The tele-town hall will be held on Sunday, August 23, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Central Time.

If you have registered and have not recieved [sic] a call by 7:10 pm or have questions, please call our office at 1-888-224-9043.

Source: Senator Amy Klobuchar’s Townhall Registration Website

I signed up on Wednesday and waited for my automated call about 20 minutes ago. The phone rang at exactly 7 pm, but instead of hearing the townhall, I heard another recorded message:

Hi I’m senator Amy Klobachar,

Tonight at 7:00 I hosted a live statewide health care townhall to discuss ways to make
the American health care system more affordable and more stable I was pleased to be joined
by Dr. Corteez, head of Mayo Clinic and Mary Wake Field the highest ranking nurse in
the federal government. I’m so sorry I missed you but I’d like to invite you to
listen to the audio recording of our townhall meeting. It’s going to be posted on my
website at Klobacher.senate.gov. You can also click on the 10 ways to talk to me about
health care link on our website and that ways you can find out about up coming events like when I’ll
be at the State Fair and share your thoughts on this issue with me if you haven’t already.

I really appreciate you being a part of our discussion on health care. Thank you.

[Call ended.]

Source: VoteForAmerica.net [MP3]

Why was I unable to join the tele-townhall?

I then called the office number as provided on her townhall registration in an attempt to remedy the error, but I heard another automated message:

Automated Voice: The mailbox belonging to…

Amy Klobuchar: Senator Amy Klobuchar’s Office…

Automated Voice: Is full. To disconnect press 1, to enter another number press 2.

Source: VoteForAmerica.net [MP3]

Why can Senator’s voice mail-boxes fill up?

Despite my inability to participate in the tele-townhall, TheUpTake.org is streaming the townhall live, right now.

Chris Daggett, the Independent candidate in the New Jersey election, broke into the double digits for the first time in Democracy Corps’ (D) latest poll. If Daggett can pull down 10% of the electorate, as James McCarville’s Democracy Corps (D) poll indicates, Corzine may have a fighting chance.

The New Jersey election is beginning to resemble the Minnesota Senate Election of 2008 where Dean Barkley, an Independence Party Candidate (not the same as Daggett) altered the electoral landscape by capturing the disillusioned major party voters. If Daggett’s support holds in the coming weeks, the election comes down to base turn-out, and in New Jersey, that favors the Democrat. This of course is a big if because it’s just one poll and a series of extrapolations; but at this juncture, it may be Corzine’s best opportunity at re-election.

The landscape in Virginia continued to grow darker for Democrat Creigh Deeds as two new polls confirmed his diminishing numbers. He’s been down by at least eight for the past month, with no indication of a reversal. Deeds needs something good to happen before the close of September.

Both Democrats are down in the polls, but where do they stand in the money game? Answer; in about the same position. I’ll start by providing the latest fundraising numbers out of New Jersey as reported on Jun 22, 2009:

                 Corzine (D)      Christie (R)
Receipts      $ 4,539,006.04   $  5,363,054.33
Expenditures  $ 4,539,006.04   $  5,170,238.97
Cash on Hand  $         0.00   $    192,815.36

Source: New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission

The figures above contain data from the close of the primary period. The leading candidates each filed their report electronically, but Corzine used an R1 form and Christie a G1; the reason for this difference is unclear, but they both contain the same information. Daggett has yet to file a finance report, as he was not involved in a primary election; a result of his Independent platform. The next report will be due on Oct 5, 2009 from all general election candidates in New Jersey.

Each major party candidate raised and spent about the same amount leaving little to no cash on hand. And although Christie holds a slight monetary edge, I do not believe this significantly contributed to his nine point lead. Other factors are at play, but I’m sure the money will help as Christie tries to maintain his lead. Corzine has also been known to spend his own money, so if the race gets truly close, money may buy the deciding votes.

I should also state that I am by no means an expert on campaign finance law within New Jersey, Virginia or any other state for that matter. With that being said lets move onto Virginia’s fundrace as of Jun 30, 2009:

                  Deeds (D)      McDonnell (R)
Receipts      $ 6,207,533.60   $ 10,673,988.44
Expenditures  $ 3,486,182.65   $  5,753,365.35
Cash on Hand  $ 2,721,350.95   $  4,920,623.09

Source: Virginia State Board of Elections

Deeds was out raised and out spent during the primary period but the raw data may misrepresent the fundraising dynamics of this gubernatorial election. The nearly 2:1 discrepancy can be explained by the presence of a rigorous Democratic Primary where the donors were split into three campaigns; as opposed to McDonnell’s (R) coronation as the only interested candidate. The combined candidacies of the Democratic primary actually out raised McDonnell during this time period. The monetary advantage for McDonnell in the past couple of months likely played a major role in his recent surge.

McDonnell was simply able to focus more time and money on the general election at an earlier point in time. The direct result of this conclusion translates into his comfortable lead in the polls. If Deeds and the DNC, along with Tim Kaine, can get the Democratic fundraising machine on track, the race will likely tighten, but Virginians may have already made up their mind.

More in a week.

(cross posted at VoteForAmerica.net)

I’ve compiled gubernatorial election polling released so far in 2009 and applied our projection methodology. The resulting conclusions, along with each poll, is depicted in the graphs below. The graphs are dynamically updated upon the inclusion of a new poll, and embeddable. The complete list of polling data is available on our Polls and Graphs page with the gubernatorial elections prefixed with “2009″ on the Race drop down list.

HTML Code:

<a href="http://voteforamerica.net/polls.aspx?Race=2009 New Jersey&Election=Governor#Results"><img src="http://voteforamerica.net/chart.aspx?State=2009 New Jersey&Election=Governor" alt="VoteForAmerica.net 2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Election" border="0" /></a>


Forum Code:

[url=http://voteforamerica.net/polls.aspx?Race=2009 New Jersey&Election=Governor#Results][img]http://voteforamerica.net/chart.aspx?State=2009 New Jersey&Election=Governor[/img][/url]


HTML Code:

<a href="http://voteforamerica.net/polls.aspx?Race=2009 Virginia&Election=Governor#Results"><img src="http://voteforamerica.net/chart.aspx?State=2009 Virginia&Election=Governor" alt="VoteForAmerica.net 2009 Virginia Gubernatorial Election" border="0" /></a>


Forum Code:

[url=http://voteforamerica.net/polls.aspx?Race=2009 Virginia&Election=Governor#Results][img]http://voteforamerica.net/chart.aspx?State=2009 Virginia&Election=Governor[/img][/url]


I’ve got two quick pieces of analysis, one for each state and I’ll preface my comments by stating that I know very little about each state and next to nothing about the candidates. I can however provide demographic and historical perspectives.

Let’s begin with New Jersey; Democratic Incumbent Jon Corzine currently trails by about 8 percent. A back-analysis of our 2008 Senate projections reveals that just two candidates overcame an 8 percent deficit in mid-July and they were both the challenger rather than the incumbent; Hagan (D) in North Carolina and Merkley (D) in Oregon. A Corzine victory would not be unprecedented, but given the political environment of an odd year election, where nobody cares, it seems unlikely. Our model currently gives Corzine just a 1.05% chance of victory.

Virginia features a much more competitive, incumbent-less field in a state trending heavily blue. The Republican Candidate, Bob McDonnell currently has the upper hand as Creigh Deeds’ primary bounce seems to be subsiding; but with that being said, neither candidate has obtained inevitability. The biggest wild card in this election will be the contribution of the Democratic National Committee which is currently chaired by the present Governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine. If Deeds and Kaine can effectively leverage the Democratic base in Virginia, they should easily win. McDonnell’s strategy is simple, stay ahead and hope election fatigue sets in, thus diminishing Democratic turnout. In either case, the victor of the next month will likely be the victor at the end of three months.

I’ll post a polling update every Monday from now until November 3rd with the latest polls and analysis pertaining to the two gubernatorial elections of 2009. If another race produces fluid polling data, I’ll incorporate that data as well, but I just don’t see it happening.

(cross posted at VoteForAmerica.net)

The above-entitled matter came before the Court upon a Motion in Limine by Contestee Al Franken to Limit Absentee-Ballot Evidence to Ballots Pleaded in the Notice of Contest. The Court having read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following:

ORDER

1. Contestee A1 Franken’s Motion in Limine to Limit Absentee-Ballot Evidence to Ballots Pleaded in the Notice of Contest is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. The scope of this trial shall be limited to the following:

i. Absentee ballots where it is claimed that the voter complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes § 203B.12, subd, 2.

ii. Absentee ballots where it is claimed that the voter’s non-compliance with Minnesota Statutes § 2038.12, subd. 2 was not due to fault on behalf of the voter.

b. Contestants estimate the total number of these ballots to be 4,797.

c. Contestants are limited to presenting evidence on only those ballots that were specifically disclosed to Contestee on or before January 23,2009.

2. Any other relief not specifically provided herein is DENIED.

3. The attached memorandum is incorporated herein by reference.

[From the attached Memorandum]

[I]n order for Contestee to be given a fair opportunity to meet the asserted claims, Contestants are limited. to the individual voters whose ballots they believed werewrongly rejected prior to the commencement of trial, Contestants, therefore, are limited to presenting evidence on only those ballots that were specifically disclosed to Contestee by name as of January 23, 2009.

Source: Order on Contestee’s Motion in Limine to Limit Absentee-Ballot Evidence to Ballots Pleaded in the Notice of Contest via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

At this juncture, the Election Contest Court will only consider absentee ballots that are contained within the area specified by the above order in sections 1.a.i. and 1.a.ii; section 1.c also applies, but only to the Contestant, Norm Coleman. This order only applies to absentee ballots, it does not affect the double counting issue or any other anomaly. I’ve created an Euler Diagram below that illustrates the now restricted universe of absentee ballots, as the above order applies to Norm Coleman:

C1. This circle represents the initial list of some 12,000 absentee ballots that are currently rejected; the Coleman campaign presented a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting that these 12,000 ballots be opened, counted and certified. As of yesterday, their motion was denied:

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Court on January 23, 2009, upon Contestants’ “Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following:

ORDER

1. Contestants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

2. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED.

3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference.

Source: Order on Contestants’ Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

C2. Represents the 4,797 absentee ballots as estimated within section 1.b by the Coleman campaign. The ruling in 1.b does not apply to the Franken campaign in any way shape or form because the request was filed by Franken requesting restrictions upon Coleman. The Coleman campaign did not append any requests to Franken’s motion, as they are allowed to do, requesting restrictions on Franken. If there was no request for restrictions, restrictions cannot be created.

C3. This circle explicitly outlines section 1.c, although the exact number of presentable ballots remains unclear. The best guess I can provide stems from the original election contest filing; on page 36 the document reads, “the Coleman campaign contends that there are 654 [rejected absentee] ballots, in addition to those identified by local election officials, that should be examined.” The Coleman campaign disclosed at least 654 specific, rejected absentee ballots before the January 23rd deadline.

C4. This circle deals with the future tense and represents the ballots which will be explicitly presented as evidence to the court by Norm Coleman. Franken will be allowed to file rebuttal evidence on any ballot Coleman presents to the court within this subset.

C5. This final circle represents the final number of currently rejected absentee ballots that will eventually be counted that were originally presented by Coleman.

The Election Contest Court uses the adversarial legal system; each side presents their side of the issue and in doing so both sides are represented. This, in theory, ensures that each ballot, presented by either side, receives fair consideration. Coleman’s side is very well established, while Franken’s is less understood.

To begin defining Franken’s outer circle, I will make an assumption; Franken wants to maximize the ratio between potentially rejected absentee ballots and potential Franken votes. In other words, Franken wouldn’t submit a rejected absentee ballot if it is more likely to contain a vote for Coleman; the burden is on Coleman to ensure that each ballot cast for Coleman is considered in accordance with the ECC.

The document below was presented by Franken on January 12th in response to Coleman’s election contest filing; pay close attention to the specifically referenced absentee ballots that were rejected:

INTRODUCTION

Contestee, Al Franken (“Franken”), certified as having been chosen as United States Senator by the people of Minnesota in the November 4, 2008, election (“Election”), files this Answer to the Notice of Contest (“Notice”) filed by Contestees Norm Coleman and Cullen Sheehan (collectively, “Coleman”).

…

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM [Page 21 of 565]

LAWFULLY CAST ABSENTEE BALLOTS REJECTED BY COLEMAN

3. Although Franken agreed with local election officials that many of the absentee ballots on the list of 1,346 ballots were obviously erroneously rejected, Coleman’s campaign objected to the opening and counting of many such ballots. In Duluth, in S1. Louis County,
Coleman refused to allow 35 absentee ballots, identified below, to be counted solely because the dates of the signatures of the voter and witness were not the same:

[Table of 35 absentee voters from 11 Duluth precincts in St. Louis County]

…

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM [Page 23 of 565]

ERRONEOUSLY REJECTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS

5. Franken has identified a large number of absentee ballots that were rejected in error by election judges and local election officials, and which were not included on the list of 1,346 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots created by local election officials, and were not counted as part of the recount. In Exhibit D, for each voter identified below, Franken attaches declarations from each voter and/or other supporting documentation demonstrating that local election officials rejected each ballot in error.

[Table of 86 absentee voters from 79 precincts, across 20 counties]

THIRD COUNTERCLAIM [Page 26 of 565]

MISSING BALLOTS

6. In a number of precincts not selected by Coleman, ballots went missing between Election Day and the recount. Under Minnesota case law, a ballot serves as the best evidence of a vote. But when ballots are missing, or their integrity is otherwise compromised, election officials must turn to the next best evidence: here, the vote totals provided by election officials on Election Day. Where, as here, actual ballots cast on Election Day cannot be found, local election officials must submit-and the State Canvassing Board must accept-the Election Day
return as reflecting the proper tally of votes for purposes of the canvass, the recount, and the Board’s certification of the results under Minn. Stat. § 204C.33.

…

8. Similarly, ballots went missing during the course of the recount from the following precincts and were not adjusted for, resulting in a net loss of votes for Franken:

[A total of 16 precincts were listed, across 9 counties totaling 55 votes; the individual ballots are not explicitly listed]

…

FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM [Page 27 of 565]

COUNTING OF ORIGINAL AND DUPLICATE BALLOTS

9. If and when Coleman is allowed to and does identify the “numerous precincts throughout the State of Minnesota,” and proves that irregularities did, in fact occur during the recount, Franken reserves the right to identify additional precincts in which the numbers of original ballots and duplicate ballots were not identical and propose procedures whereby all identified precincts are treated uniformly with respect to inspection and relief, if any, ordered by the Court.

10. Coleman gained votes in the recount in certain precincts where the increase is as likely due to counting of original and duplicate ballots as in the precincts identified by Coleman. Those precincts are:

[A total of 12 precincts were listed, across 6 counties totaling 34 votes; the individual ballots are not explicitly listed]

FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM [Page 28 of 565]

ILLEGAL VOTES

11. Under Minn. Stat. § 201.014, subd. 2, individuals convicted of felonies whose civil rights have not been restored are ineligible to vote. Under Minn. Stat. § 204C .13, if election judges determine that a voter is not eligible to vote, they must place the ballot of that voter unopened among the spoiled ballots.

…

EXHIBIT E [Page 545 of 565]

Lawfully Cast Absentee Ballots That Were Not Counted

[A list of 673 voter's names is detailed along with the precinct and county in which they voted]

Source: Contestee’s Answer and Counterclaims via MNCourts.gov [PDF, 17.3 MB]

The above document lists 794 specific voters who cast absentee ballots that were rejected, and still remain uncounted. I think it is fair to assume that Franken’s outer circle roughly encompasses these 794 specific voters, as listed directly above, who cast absentee ballots. From this list we can construct a Euler Diagram of Franken’s absentee ballot universe:

F1. This circle represents at least the aforementioned 794 specific absentee ballots, but this number may, and probably will change, as evidenced in this motion filed by Franken on February 4th:

MOTION

Contestee Al Franken moves for leave to amend his Answer and Counterclaims in light of the Court’s Order dated February 3, 2009, allowing Contestants to pursue claims involving approximately 4,800 absentee ballots. Specifically, Contestee intends to amend his
counterclaims to reflect his continuing review and analysis of the approximately 11,000 rejected absentee ballots. Among other things, Contestee will further refine Exhibit E to the Second Counterclaim, eliminating some ballots and adding others.

Source: Contestee’s Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaims via MNCourts.gov [PDF, 17.3 MB]

The Franken filing does not however reference any specific changes and for this reason it is likely to fail. The Coleman campaign has yet to file a response.

F2. The Election Contest Court has yet to determine the number of ballots from Franken’s list, estimated at 794, that qualify for consideration under 1.a.i and 1.aii. It is possible that F2 is a subset of C2, but the information expressed in 1.b is somewhat unclear. Are there 4,797 total absentee ballots meeting the requirements expressed in 1.a.i and 1.aii, or are there 4,797 absentee ballots that Coleman has cherry picked that meet the restrictions? If the first statement is true then F2 is a subset of C2, otherwise it is not and the total universe of considerable rejected absentee is whatever Franken’s list is determined to be plus the 4,797 in which Coleman is already restricted.

F3. This region represents the number of ballots that are eligible for future consideration and may be presented as evidence. Coleman will be allowed to file rebuttal evidence on any ballot Franken presents to the court within this subset.

F4. These are the ballots that will eventually be presented to the Election Contest Court as evidence. Like C4, this region is not explicitly defined, although the aforementioned 794 will likely be eligible.

F5. This final circle represents the final number of currently rejected absentee ballots that will eventually be counted that were originally presented by Franken.

If we put everything together, the set of all ballots, that will eventually be counted as a result of the Election Contest Litigation is shown below:

It remains to be seen how these various sets of ballots will be counted but the review will not be done on a ballot by ballot basis. The court will likely request an election inspector to examine all ballots in a certain subset if the Coleman campaign is able to prove that there were inconsistencies when applying election statutes or if there were generic equal protection violations. In any case, the Election Contest continues and the burden still lies upon the Coleman campaign.

Full Disclosure: The empirical information is authoritatively correct, but my interpretation of the legal proceedings may not be accurate. If you notice any legal fallacies, please alert me of my error; I am not a legal expert, but I have thoroughly researched the preceding article.

I downloaded the high-resolution satellite image and traced the population areas in Adobe Acrobat. Using the resulting polygons, the area can be calculated:

(Click the image for a larger version)

The effective scale is acquired by measuring the diameter of the Washington Monument’s base (which we know to be 250 feet) on the image, and converting to real world measurements. In this case, each inch represents 500 feet. A table of each polygon’s area is listed below:

       Label    Area (sq ft)   Label   Area (sq ft)
         0        132,500        19       15,000
         1         20,000        20       25,000
         2         27,500        21      105,000
         3       302,500         22       10,000
         4         5,000         23       52,500
         5       287,500         24      100,000
         6        12,500         25       27,500
         7        72,500         26      125,000
         8       117,500         27       65,000
         9        12,500         28       75,00
         10       25,000         29       75,00
         11      155,000         30       7,500
         12       40,000         31       57,500
         13      172,500         32       27,500
         14       27,500         33       17,500
         15       27,500         34       7,500
         16       45,000         35       32,500
         17       32,500         36       20,000
         18      140,000       Total    2,365,000

Despite their appearance, these figures are not exact. The area calculations are quantized based upon the capabilities of Adobe Acrobat and the resolution of the image. It would have been better to use a tool like AutoCad to trace the regions, but even so, the resolution issue would still persist. The resolution of the image makes it impossible to accurately trace each and every crowd region. Based upon these assertions, and the knowledge that low-density crowds are not visible to a satellite, we know that some spectators were not and cannot be identified; their exact number will forever remain unknown. It then follows that our 2,365,000 sq. ft. figure excludes these spectators.

While we have a baseline measurement for the size of the crowd, we still do not know the quantity of the crowd. Fear not, our Clinton Era tax dollars were hard at work:

In the model, all people are modeled in circles individually to consider human spatial requirement. The diameter of a circle is determined as 0.4 meter with consideration of the size of body. Using the distance between evacuees and spatial requirements, interactions between people are assessed. It is an important factor in predicting congestion or contra-flows of a crowd.

Source: Building and Fire Research Laboratory via NIST.gov

The area within a circle of diameter .4 m is 0.125 sq. meters; this then converts to a crowd density of one person per 1.35 square feet. If this density is uniformly applied to our baseline area of 2,365,000 ft. sq, we can obtain a minimum boundary for the number of inauguration onlookers; at least 1,748,445 people attended Barack Obama’s Inauguration.

(cross posted at VoteForAmerica.net)

TO: The Honorable Judges of the above-named Court, Al Franken, Contestee.

1. As stated in Contestants’ Notice of Contest dated January 6, 2009, Contestant
Cullen Sheehan believes and states that Contestants cannot properly prepare their case for trial
without an inspection of Ballots and Election Materials relating to the office of United States
Senate in the General Election, including, without limitation, all Ballots and Election Materials
in the precincts described hereinabove.

2. Contestant Cullen Sheehan therefore requests this Court to order such inspection
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 209.06 and to implement procedures for appointment of
inspectors on behalf of Contestants and Contestee pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 209.06.

3. Contestant Cullen Sheehan further believes and states that Contestants cannot
properly prepare their case for trial without a recount of the Ballots in certain precincts pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes § 209.06 and therefore request this Court to order such recount relative to
those precincts identified by Contestants.

4. The precincts to be inspected and/or recount are as identified within Exhibit A
through Exhibit E attached hereto.

Source: Verified Petition For Appointment of Inspectors via MNCourts.org [PDF]

The Coleman campaign is essentially asking the court to appoint inspectors with the power to examine whatever ballots the Coleman campaign wants to evaluate. A brief summary of the Exhibits referenced above follows:

EXHIBIT A

PRECINCTS WHERE DOUBLE COUNTING OCCURRED
DUE TO DUPLICATE/ORIGINAL PROBLEM

[214 ballots are listed in 38 precincts across 9 counties.]

EXHIBIT B

PRECINCTS WHERE BALLOTS WERE NOT COUNTED DURING THE RECOUNT
DUE TO SECRETARY OF STATE INTERPRETATION OF RULE 9

[39 ballots are listed in 12 precincts across 6 counties.]

EXHIBIT C

PRECINCTS WITH MORE BALLOTS COUNTED THAN PERSONS VOTING ON
ELECTION NIGHT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY QUESTIONS

[372 ballots are listed in 20 precincts across 11 counties.]

EXHIBIT D

COUNTIES/PRECINCTS WITH FEWER BALLOTS COUNTED
THAN PERSONS VOTING ON ELECTION NIGHT

[76 ballots are listed in 7 precincts across 6 counties.]

EXHIBIT E

PRECINCTS WITH OTHER IRREGULARITIES DURING THE RECOUNT

[17 ballots are listed in 9 precincts across 5 counties.]

Source: Affidavit of Matthew W Haapoja – Counsel for Contestants via MNCourts.org [PDF]

In total, the affidavit lists 718 ballots in 86 precincts across 21 counties. Of these 718 ballots, 586 ballots (as listed in Exhibit A and C) correspond to the apparent discrepancy between the number of voters on Nov 4th and the final recounted total. Recalling from our complete precinct data table, there appear to 1391 ballots that meet the specifications set forth by the Coleman campaign in regard to the aforementioned 586 ballots.

The increase in the number of anomalous votes presented by the Coleman campaign illustrates a potential realization within their campaign. Based upon yesterday’s court hearing and the subsequent motions by Franken, it appears as though the Coleman campaign is building a safeguard against the possibility of the three judge panel ruling against their request to have rejected absentee ballots re-available for review as requested in Article 22 of the election contest and in Article 7 of affidavit filed by Matthew W Haapoja.

If we also recall Exhibit C from Coleman’s Election Contest and our corresponding article, it is highly probable that the ballots listed within Exhibit A and Exhibit C of this latest filing heavily favor Coleman. If each request associated with these 586 ballots is granted, I believe Coleman would take the lead. Coleman has specified an additional 460 anomalies, above and beyond the 126 first laid out within the election contest. Based upon our simple extrapolation of the 126 original anomalies, Coleman should gain about 51 votes. While I have not repeated the calculations for these additional 460 precincts, I think it is reasonable to assume that these ballots have a high likelihood of benefiting Coleman.

The scenario under which Coleman could take the lead represents an unbalanced scenario; if Franken were to submit an equal number of ballots, the effect of Coleman’s additions would likely be negated based upon the composition of the 1391 ballots I have previously identified.

The table below illustrates the information presented within Exhibit B of the affidavit filed by Matthew W Haapoja:

[The County, Precinct and Number of Ballots Potentially at Issue columns are listed within Exhibit B; the Nov 4th Voters, Recount Total and Coleman Margin (%) columns have been appended using data from our PDF.]

COUNTY/PRECINCT         BALLOTS AT NOV 4TH  RECOUNT COLEMAN
                           ISSUE    VOTERS   TOTAL  MARGIN %
Anoka/Spring Lake Park 1A    3        895     892    -3.13
Dakota/Burnsville P11*       1       2016     2017    7.07
Dakota/Farmington P1*        1       1016     1017    3.54
Dakota/Lakeville P10        11       2549     2538    30.3
Hennepin/Bloomington W4-P6*  9       1951     1950   -3.79
Hennepin/Brooklyn Park WEP8  1       1898     1897    15.1
Hennepin/Edina P11           4       1845     1841    4.89
Hennepin/Maple Grove P6      3       2047     2044    24.4
Itasca/Comfort**             1        601      600    18.3
Ramsey/Roseville P2          1       2423     2422   -7.68
St Louis/Duluth P16          1       1531     1530   -28.9
St Louis/Hermantown P3       3       1831     1828   -8.81

*If the proposed corrections were to be made, the resulting total number of votes counted would exceed the number of voters recorded on election day.

**There is no “Comfort” precinct in Itasca. There is a “Comfort” in Kanabec County; the Kanabec data is used.

Within Exhibit B, the Coleman campaign is not only asserting that 39 ballots were erroneously ignored, but that twelve additional ballots, across three precincts, were cast above and beyond the number of voters present on election day. The Coleman campaign has long argued that a discrepancy between the number of voters and the number of counted votes is reason for concern; they appear to be suggesting that other votes were double counted in these three precincts.

The second filing comes not from the Coleman campaign, or the Franken campaign, but instead is an intervention from seven voters who received notification on January 8th, 2009 that their absentee ballots were not counted. Within the eleven page document, their lawyers, Bruce D. Kennedy and Mark Priore, request that the courts intervene during the election contest to review these ballots; they also request that any legal fees be reimbursed under the equal protection clause. The first paragraph of their claim follows:

TO: The Honorable judges of the above-named Court, Norm Coleman, Contestant,
Cullen Sheehan, Contestant; and AI Franken, Contestee.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that [seven citizens]
desire to collectively intervene in this action pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01 and
24.02; and that in the event of objection, they will move this Court for an order granting
leave to intervene as a party in this action as soon as the parties may be heard. In the
absence of objection by an existing party to this action within 30 days after service of
this notice on that party, such intervention shall be deemed to have been accomplished.

Source: Notice of Intervention via MNCourts.org [PDF]

It’s tough to determine the allegiance of these seven voters especially given the views put forth by Bruce D. Kennedy, their representation. I find it probable that these seven voters do not represent a single constituency.

The third document presented to the election contest court centers on the issue of privacy protection; the document is 75 pages. The filing doesn’t appear to contain any election specific requests, but rather attempts to establish standards by which information should be cited and presented while upholding privacy and data practice laws.

The three judge panel will, in theory, present their ruling of Wednesday’s motion to dismiss, tomorrow (Friday) at 12:00 PM CT. During the Friday hearing they will also hear Coleman’s version of the headshot, the Motion for Summary Judgment. The entire request is literally presented below and essentially states that the court should just grant all of Coleman’s requests and declare Coleman the winner:

Petitioners respectfully request this Court grant judgment as a matter of law in their favor
as follows:

1. Directing that Petitioners’ absentee ballots shall be opened and counted
immediately, and the total be declared and certified, for such use as might be appropriate by the
United States Senate, this Court in the above-captioned matter, or any other proper use under
law; and

2. Granting Petitioners such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

Source: Petitioners’ Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.org [PDF]

This request by Coleman has zero chance of success, or the same chance as Franken’s earlier motion for instant victory. Like Franken, Coleman seems to be introducing other beneficial evidence, as described above, into the election contest through the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Update [9:09 AM CT]: The courts have denied Franken’s motion to dismiss the election contest; this ruling was posted after midnight local time. This is not a surprise. The court cited two main items supporting their decision:

II. Contestee AI Franken’s Motion to Dismiss Is Denied

a. The Court Is Vested with Jurisdiction to Hear an Election Contest

i. Motion to Dismiss Legal Standard
ii. The Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction is Constitutional
iii. The Court Has Jurisdiction Pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 209.12.

b. Contestants’ Notice of Contest Is Sufficient to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss

The Court finds the Notice of Contest sufficiently Specifies the grounds on which the
contest will be made pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 209.021, subd. 1, specifically referencing
absentee ballots, missing ballots, and ballots that were counted twice. Viewing the Notice of
Contest in light of relevant case law and construing the facts alleged in the light most favorable
to Contestants, the non-moving party, Northern States Power, 122 N.W.2d at 3D, the Court finds
the Notice of Contest puts Contestee on notice of the grounds of the contest and affords him a
fair opportunity to rebut the asserted claims. See Greenly, 395 N.W.2d at 90; Christenson, 119
N.W.2d at 39. Therefore, the Court finds the pleading sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Source: Order on Contestee’s Motion to Dismiss via MNCourts.org [PDF]

The court destroyed Franken’s claim, and they are likely to reach the same conclusion after hearing Norm’s similar, Motion for Summary Judgment later today.

Update [3:44 PM CT]: The MN Election Contest Court published another ruling from yesterday’s hearing regarding Coleman’s request to have both original and rejected absentee ballots deposited with the court. The motion, by Coleman, was denied:

At the hearing on this matter on the morning of January 22,2009, Contestants
stated that their primary reasons for requesting an inspection under Minnesota Statute ?
209.06 were to narrow the issues for trial and compare voter rolls to the number of votes
cast in a precinct Contestants conceded that they would be able to prove their case
without an inspection by calling election judges as witnesses, subpoenaing voter rolls,
and subpoenaing ballots. The parties already viewed the ballots during the recount
process. Given that the trial oftbis matter must begin on January 26,2009, the Court is
not convinced that another inspection ofthe ballots is efficient or needed to prepare for
trial.

Source: Order – relating to Inspection of Ballots and Other Relief with attached Memorandum via MNCourts.org [PDF]

The Coleman campaign can still however subpoena this information (or attempt to) through the election contest process slated to begin next Monday, the 26th of January. The Election Contest Court has not yet reached a decision regarding today’s Summary of Judgment Motion; I will publish an analysis of their decision, when it becomes available.

12. By way of example only, erroneously and wrongfully included in the vote totals certified by the Board were a significant and material number of:

(a) Ballots which were counted twice during the Recount due to such Ballots being not marked as “DUPLICATES” and matched with its “Original” Ballot in
contravention of Minnesota Statutes § 206.86, subd. 5. On information and belief, double-counting has occurred in numerous precincts throughout the State of Minnesota including, without limitation, the precincts described within Exhibit C attached hereto. The Coleman for Senate campaign filed a Petition with the Minnesota Supreme Court seeking to avoid this double-counting, but the Minnesota Supreme Court, pursuant to Order dated December 24, 2008, held that the proper venue for resolution of this issue was an election contest. A true and correct copy of the Minnesota Supreme Court Order dated December 24, 2008 relative to double-counting of original and unmarked duplicate Ballots is attached hereto as Exhibit D;

(b) Ballots which were not counted on election night but were “found” and counted during the Recount (despite lack of any chain of custody or other assurance or evidence of the reliability or integrity of such Ballots), which Ballots exceed the number of persons who voted in such precincts on Election Day. This occurred in numerous precincts throughout the State of Minnesota including, without limitation, the precincts described within Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. True and correct copies of documents relating to these precincts are attached as Exhibit F hereto and incorporated herein by reference;

(c) Alleged Ballots which were not located or viewed during the Recount but which were “counted” during the Recount and included within Recount totals because they were deemed “missing” by the Board, despite any evidence that such alleged Ballots were actually missing and contrary to Minnesota case law. This occurred in the City of Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1. Accordingly, the Board erroneously and inconsistently certified election-night numbers from this precinct, despite the fact that the Board did not certify election-night numbers from any other precincts during the Recount, including, without limitation, the precincts identified within Exhibit C and Exhibit E attached hereto. True and correct copies of documents relating to the City of Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1 are attached as Exhibit G hereto and incorporated herein by reference;

…

(f) Ballots which were challenged by representatives of the Coleman for
Senate campaign during the Recount, which challenges were erroneously and
inconsistently rejected by the Board and therefore erroneously ruled by the Board as
votes for Contestee Al Franken.

(g) Ballots which were challenged by representatives of the Franken for
Senate campaign, which challenges were erroneously and inconsistently upheld by the
Board and therefore erroneously not ruled by the Board as votes for Contestant Norm
Coleman.

Source: MNCourts.org

Articles 12.D and 12.E govern the improper inclusion or exclusion of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. These articles do not directly reference any supporting evidence due to voter protection laws. The Coleman campaign may have internal data that supports this case, some of which they presented in Exhibit B, but the public release of this information must be cleared with the voter whose ballot they wish to publish. As such, there is no publicly available information pertaining to the complete subset of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. Thus, any consideration involving Articles 12.D and 12.E are omitted.

The entire election contest contains seven exhibits (A-G); five (C-G) are referenced within Article 12 and are analyzed in detail below. Exhibit A consists of three documents posted on the SOS website pertaining to the recount result. The first document provides a scan of the Certificate of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board acknowledging the result of the recount as signed on January 5th. The second document depicts a scanned copy of the recount results by county as of January 3rd. The final document contains the Senate Recount Canvassing Draft as published on January 4th and presented at the January 5th meeting of the State Canvassing Board.

Exhibit B contains the Order of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision regarding absentee ballots on January 5th. The Exhibit is then divided into Sub-Exhibits, B-1 and B-2. Exhibit B-1 is further divided into four groups, A-D; each of which contains scanned copies of the secrecy labels located on the outside of absentee ballots. Each subgroup contains ballots which were opened and counted during the recount. Exhibit B-2 contains scanned absentee ballot labels which were not opened and counted, but the Coleman campaign alleges that they should have been opened and counted.

Let’s begin by looking at the evidence the Coleman campaign presents in Exhibit C:

EXHIBIT C: [Page 109 of 204]

PRECINCTS IN WHICH DOUBLE VOTES WERE CERTIFIED BY MINNESOTA STATE CANVASSING BOARD

[The County/Precinct is the only column listed within the legal brief; the Errors and Margin column have been appended along with the Total row.]

     County/Precinct              Errors   Margin (%)
     Dakota/Eagan P-3                9     Col (4.11)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W2-P5      4    Fra (49.14)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W3-P5      4    Fra (41.11)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W5-P6      2    Fra (66.18)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W7-P6     12    Fra (36.66)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W7-P7      9    Fra (25.25)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W8-P7     11    Fra (65.00)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W8-P10     2    Fra (61.48)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W9-P2      6    Fra (59.37)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W10-P2    11    Fra (53.81)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W10-P4     5    Fra (57.14)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W10-P7     1    Fra (59.38)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W10-P10    0    Fra (52.14)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W11-P7     9    Fra (42.02)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W11-P8    22    Fra (31.88)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W12-P8    14    Fra (47.00)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W13-P1     0    Fra (29.93)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W13-P3     1    Fra (43.13)
     Hennepin/St. Louis Park W3-P12  1    Fra (25.98)
     Saint Louis/Cedar Valley        0     Fra (9.16)
     Saint Louis/Duluth P4           2    Fra (10.88)
     Saint Louis/Duluth (Gnesen)     1     Fra (5.72)
     Total                          126

Source: MNCourts.org

These 22 precincts originate from an affidavit filed [Original 18.6 MB] in connection to the Coleman campaign’s December 19th request to the Minnesota Supreme Court to prevent any ballots from being counted twice. Their original table included one additional precinct:

     County/Precinct              Errors   Margin (%)
     Hennepin/Robbinsdale W-4        1    Fra (27.56)

I have no idea why the Robbinsdale precinct was removed from the election contest brief; although it was the only one, of the 23, to list “N/A” as the challenge reason.

Within Article 12.A, the Coleman campaign justifies their inclusion of the 22 precincts included within Exhibit C based upon the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision on December 24th in Exhibit D regarding unmarked duplicate ballots:

EXHIBIT D: [Page 111 of 204]

…

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The petition of Norm Coleman for relief from the December 19, 2008 decision of the State Canvassing Board rejecting challenges to unmatched original damaged ballots be, and the same is, denied. But our denial of the relief requested does not constitute a binding determination in a subsequent election contest proceeding.

2. Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order be, and the same is, denied as moot.

Dated: December 24, 2008

BY THE COURT

Alan C. Page

Associate Justice

MAGNUSON, C.J., and ANDERSON, G. Barry J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.

…

Source: MNCourts.org

The Minnesota Supreme Court essentially ruled that they could not definitively reach a decision regarding the double counting issue based upon the lack of evidence presented during the oral arguments and within the attached affidavits (case# A08-2206) provided by the Coleman campaign.

The Coleman campaign provided just 20 precincts with anomalous voting errors, as listed in Exhibit C, but based upon my work there appears to be 351 precincts which meet the Coleman campaign’s classification, and likely the correct interpretation of double counted votes. I’ve compiled a comprehensive list of Minnesota’s 4130 precincts and the ad-hoc absentee ballot precinct into a series of tables, detailing these voting anomalies. These tables are available for download below:

By Precinct: PDF, 588 KB

By County: PDF, 112 KB

Composite of All Precincts and Counties: PDF, 604 KB

Anomalous Precincts Sorted Alphabetically and by Errors: PDF, 200 KB

Had the Coleman campaign presented all 351 precincts, instead of cherry picking precincts likely to favor their cause, the Supreme Court may have reached a more favorable determination. Instead the Coleman campaign is left fighting an election contest, which may have happened anyway. Let’s take a look at a few possible outcomes regarding double counting in these 351 precincts:

Error            Anomalous          Won By         Coleman
List             Precincts  Franken  Coleman  Tie    Gain
Exhibit C            22        21       1      0     50.9
VoteForAmerica[1]    9         8        1      0    -26.9
VoteForAmerica[2]   351       176      173     2     44.3
VoteForAmerica[3]    3         2        1      2     46.8
VFA Composite[4]    356       178      175     2     74.2
Maplewood P-06       1         1        0      0     13.2
St. Paul W-3 P-09    1         1        0      0      3.9

(1) References non-zero entries within the “Total Voters 11/4 – Pre-Recount Results 11/17″ column of the “Anomalous Results” section from any of the precinct level PDFs provided above. Maplewood P-06 and St. Paul W-3 P-09 are not included in this list.

(2) References non-zero entries within the “Total Voters 11/4 – Final Recount Results 1/5″ column. This list matches the classification used by the Coleman campaign within Exhibit C and is bolded for this reason. Maplewood P-06 and St. Paul W-3 P-09 are included in this list.

(3) References non-zero entries within the “Registered Voters 11/4 – Final Recount Results 1/5″ column. Maplewood P-06 and St. Paul W-3 P-09 are not included in this list.

(4) References non-zero summations of all three columns present within the “Anomalous Results” section from any of the precinct level PDFs provided above. Maplewood P-06 and St. Paul W-3 P-09 are not included in this list.

Note: The ad-hoc absentee ballot precinct is not included in any of calculations above. Minneapolis W-3 P-01 is not included in any of the VFA error lists because there were no errors recorded in any of the three columns present within the “Anomalous Results” section from any of the precinct level PDFs provided above.

After the final day of challenge resolutions on Friday, December 18th, the Coleman campaign knew they trailed. While the public was unaware of how the withdrawn challenges would lie, my guess is that both campaigns had a fairly good idea of their probable outcome; which eventually resulted in a Franken lead of between 46 and 50 depending upon the day and the source. The very next day, on Saturday the 19th of December, the Coleman campaign filed their case with the Minnesota Supreme Court containing their original list of potentially double counted ballots as discussed previously.

The Coleman campaign knew going into the filing that they trailed by about 50 votes and they knew that their list of double counted ballots would probably net them about 50 votes with just the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots left to count. The Franken campaign had long attempted to include these wrongfully rejected absentee ballots because it would likely add to their vote total; the Coleman campaign seemed to embrace this reasoning.

Had the Coleman campaign submitted a more comprehensive list of potentially double counted ballots, say a list containing 351 precincts, the Supreme Court may have reached a different conclusion. The Coleman campaign could have lead going into the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots stage; they would have then been in a position to essentially bypass the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots based on the Supreme Court’s later ruling. The Coleman campaign could have been in a vastly superior position had they take into account the interest of all Minnesotans, rather than just the Minnesotans in a select 22 precincts. Coleman would likely have been certified the winner and it would be Franken filing the election contest seeking to include the absentee ballots which the Coleman campaign would have likely vetoed.

Instead it is Coleman arguing for additional votes. The following three Exhibits illustrate specific precincts in which the Coleman campaign believes systematic errors occurred that “artificially” benefited Franken’s vote total:

EXHIBIT E: [Page 118 of 204]

DESCRIPTION OF PRECINCTS IN WHICH MORE BALLOTS WERE COUNTED DURING THE RECOUNT THAN PERSONS VOTED ON ELECTION NIGHT

Maplewood Precinct 6:

The election night totals indicated 1,396 votes cast (inclusive of accepted absentee ballots).
However, the Recount tallied 1,564 votes cast although only 1,533 voters cast ballots according
to the precinct’s record of pre-registered voters, election day registrants and accepted absentee
ballots. Hence, an excess of thirty-one (31) more votes than voters were certified by the Board
relative to this precinct in the Recount.

St. Paul Ward 3, Precinct 9:

The election night totals indicated 1,747 votes cast (inclusive of accepted absentee ballots).
However, the Recount tallied 1,764 votes cast. Hence, an excess of seventeen (17) more votes
than voters were certified by the Board relative to this precinct in the Recount.

Source: MNCourts.org

I have absolutely no idea how the Coleman campaign arrived at the 1533 number described within the preceding quote. The total voters per precinct data that I used in my calculations was accessed at the Secretary of State’s website on January 12th; I compared this data to a subset of the same data as accessed on November 24th. From this comparison, Hennepin County’s total voter data increased by 8 votes. I could not identify which precinct(s) were affected in Hennepin County as I do not have a complete set of precinct data from November 24th; I have data from about 3400 of Minnesota’s 4130 precincts and a complete overview of the count by county. Each of these 3400 precincts and all other counties remained completely unchanged from November 24th to January 12th. It is entirely possible that the data available before November 24th presented different information and that is where the Coleman campaigns gets their 1533 figure. The data provided in the contest brief relating to St Paul’s 3rd Ward and 9th precinct are much more agreeable to the data I used:

                   Maplewood P-06  St. Paul W-3 P-09
Candidate              Votes             Votes
DEAN BARKLEY (IP)   197 (14.24%)     223 (14.24%)
NORM COLEMAN (R)    542 (39.19%)     563 (39.19%)
AL FRANKEN (DFL)    628 (45.41%)     933 (45.41%)
OTHER                16 (1.16%)       8 (1.16%)

NOV 4TH TOTAL           1383              1727
FINAL RECOUNT           1564              1765
TOTAL VOTERS            1396              1747

FINAL - VOTERS           168               18

I think it’s fairly safe to say that something unusual happened in both of the preceding precincts. While St. Paul W-3 P-09 seems to be a standalone anomaly, that will eventually benefit Coleman, Maplewood P-06 is another story. The Coleman campaign further addresses this precinct, and the issues surrounding it in Exhibit F:

EXHIBIT F: [Page 120 of 204]

DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO BALLOTS “FOUND” DURING THE RECOUNT BUT WHICH LACK ANY CHAIN OF CUSTODY OR VERIFICATION AS TO RELIABILITY

…

It is our understanding that you have not yet located any voter registration applications relative to
the 171 additional ballots allegedly “found” in a voting machine in Maplewood Precinct 6,
despite your assertions to the Star Tribune (in an article posted online yesterday afternoon) that

these applications had already been found.

…

According to the statistical information provided by the election judges to the
Maplewood city clerk, a total of 1,396 persons voted on Election Day. That was
also the number of votes reported as cast by the summary statement tapes from
the ballot counter. Since the total voting reported by the election judges agreed
with the total number of ballots cast on the summary statement tape from the
ballot counter, there was no reason at the time to believe that there was any
problem with either of these data.

At the conclusion of the recount for that precinct, it became clear that the
summary statement tape did not accurately reflect the number of persons and
how they had voted. After reviewing the pre-registered polling place roster, the
voter registration cards of election day registrants, and the accepted absentee
ballot return envelopes, we have determined that the voter statistics submitted by
the election judges were also in error.

We have determined from the recount that a total of 1,564 ballots were cast at
that precinct. From an examination of the voter registration and absentee voting
materials, we can confirm that 1,560 persons voted. It is possible that the other
four voters were issued a ballot without signing the polling place roster, but at this
point we do not know this for a fact. We will continue to examine the materials in
our possession and will inform you if we are able to resolve this matter.

…

Source: MNCourts.org

I honestly have no idea what to think of Maplewood P-06, but we do know that Franken gained 37 votes from the late inclusion of the 171 ballots referenced above within Exhibit F. Coleman’s entire case may rest on the possibility of these 37 votes affecting the outcome. For now we’ll move onto another weird scenario discussed in the next exhibit:

EXHIBIT G: [Page 129 of 204]

DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS WARD 3 PRECINCT I

…

While only 1,896 ballots were produced, the figures furnished to the campaigns by
Minneapolis elections official Cindy Reichert show that at least 2,028 people voted on
Election Day. The machine tape for Precinct 3-1 shows that 2,028 voters cast ballots.
Further, according to Ms. Reichert: 1,047 people signed the roster; 932 people were new
registrants; and 50 absentee ballots were accepted. The total of these is 2,029. Further,
Minneapolis reported that 1,965 people cast votes in the U.S. Senate race.

In other words, there are 133 missing ballots.

…

Source: MNCourts.org

At first glance this Minneapolis precinct appears to mirror the situation of Maplewood P-06; but the correlation between the number of acknowledged voters and the number of recorded votes on November 4th yields fairly conclusive evidence to support the assertion that 133 ballots were in fact lost. There is additional evidence beyond this numerical correlation to support the lost ballot theory. Minneapolis Elections Director Cindy Reichert stated that there were five envelopes containing ballots in Minneapolis W-3 P-01; of these five envelopes, the first is missing while the remaining four envelopes and the ballots contained therein were located. The reversion to original election day tally netted Franken an additional 46 votes.

Regarding Articles 12.F and 12.G:

The Coleman campaign had an opportunity to re-challenge the challenge ballot determinations of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board on December 23rd. The Coleman campaign presented a list of 16 ballots which they believed merited reconsideration. They also included 24 similar ballots that they believed supported their objective. The Board reviewed these 40 ballots, and nothing happened.

If past performance is any indication of future success, it doesn’t appear as though the Coleman campaign has a serious case regarding “challenges [which] were erroneously” ruled upon by the State Canvassing Board. The ballots in question can be viewed on the StarTribune website, at least until they’re forced to close shop.

With Franken currently certified as the recount winner by 225 votes, Coleman faces a tough battle. If we go through each Exhibit presented within this article and extract any votes that may potentially be added to any candidate, Coleman does not retake the lead:

     Precinct                                   Coleman
     List                                         Gain
     VFA Composite[4]                             74.2
  -  Maplewood P-06 Projection                    13.2
 ------------------------------------------------------
     Coleman's Best Case Double Counted Result      61
  +  Maplewood P-06 Late Inclusion of 171 Ballots   37
  +  Minneapolis W-3 P-01's 131 Lost Ballots        46
 ------------------------------------------------------
     Coleman's Best Case Election Contest Gain     144

Norm Coleman is unlikely to pick up enough votes during his election contest to overcome the current deficit. Coleman may have to rely on absentee ballots if he hopes to mount any sort of comeback. Based upon Norm’s past performance in the realm of absentee ballots it will most certainly be an uphill climb.

The first step of the election contest occurred on January 12th when MN Supreme Court Justice Alan Page appointed the three member judicial panel tasked with presiding over the election contest; the appointed members are as follows:

Elizabeth Hayden: Stearns County Judge, appointed in 1986 by Democratic Governor Perpich.

Denise Reilly: Hennepin County Asst. Chief Judge , appointed in 1997 by Republican Governor Carlson.

Kurt Marben: Pennington County Asst. Chief Judge , appointed in 2000 by Independent Governor Ventura.

The next step of the process occurs on January 21st when the panel will meet to address Franken’s motion to dismiss Coleman’s election contest. This will not be granted, the election contest will proceed. The actual contest will begin on January 26th but the actual agenda for that date has not yet been set.