4.18.2009

Coleman & Franken: onto State Supreme Court

Minnesota's Missing Votes - Some Senate absentee ballots are more equal than others.

Excerpt:

[a] solution is to hold a special Senate election. Minnesota law does not specifically provide for such a runoff. However, the U.S. Constitution's 17th amendment does provide states with a roadmap for filling "vacancies," which might be a legal starting point for a do-over. Even before the shifting standards of the contest trial, the St. Paul Pioneer Press looked at the ballot-counting evidence and called for a revote. It could be that this is where the court case is leading in any event.

Democrats want to portray Mr. Coleman as a sore loser and make the Republican worry that he will ruin his chances for other political office. But Mr. Coleman has a legitimate grievance that not all votes have been treated equally. If the Franken standard of disparate absentee-voter treatment is allowed to stand, every close election will be settled by a legal scramble to change the vote-counting rules after Election Day. Minnesota should take the time to get this one right.



Comment: The problem with a revote is the cost to the State but that's my preference.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic