Al Franken's campaign invented a fictional voter rejected for a medical disability as an example of why they needed to examine all rejected absentee ballots:


Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Marc Elias, lead recount attorney for Franken, said that both Ramsey and Hennepin counties had rejected the campaign's request, forcing it to take legal action.

Elias said that because Beltrami County had complied, the campaign had already learned of one woman, an 84-year-old stroke victim, whose absentee ballot was disqualified because her signature no longer matched that on her pre-stroke voter registration card.

"The state may not devise a regime where a woman, because she had a stroke, does not have the right to vote," Elias said at Franken headquarters Thursday morning.

But Beltrami County Auditor Kay Mack later questioned the campaign's account, saying her office hadn't rejected any ballots because of mismatched signatures. Mack said there was one instance of an 87-year-old woman in an assisted living center whose ballot was rejected because it bore no signature or mark. The law, Mack said, is "very clear" about not accepting such ballots.

After being contacted by the Star Tribune with Mack's account, Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr said Thursday night that there may have been "some confusion about our earlier field report," adding that the campaign is "still digging into the facts." Barr said the issue does not affect the merits of their lawsuit.

I think they were mistaken on this one. I don't think they lied. Can we just tone down the rhetoric a bit? There's no need to make this any nastier than it already is. Let's hunker down and wait for the recount to show us the facts.

Mistake? They presented as evidence of election misconduct a person who didn't exist. When you manufacture something that doesn't exist, and present it as fact, most folks call that a lie.

Ok. Let's give Al a pass on it. Hopefully he'll have enough free time on his hands next year that he can fly on down to Texas and chat with Dubya about that little WMD oopsie.

Didn't you just say that it was just that the app wasn't signed? She exists, she just didn't sign her form. They thought the sigs didn't match, but in fact she hadn't signed one of them. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. Did I miss something?

The long version is this, as I understand it.

Franken's rep said that they KNEW FOR A FACT that there was an 84 year old stroke victim whose ballot was rejected because her signature on the ballot didn't match the one on file with the voter registration. They said it was outrageous that her right to vote was being taken away because her signature had changed due to her disabling medical condition. That argument, of course, leaves the door wide open to an argument that the voter was discriminated against on the basis of disability, and would virtually guarantee a do-over. Expect to see that argument repeatedly, as well as a discrimination argument in the case of faulty ballots from non-native English speaking voters as well. Rest assured that the legal team is thinking three steps ahead of ways that they can chip away at that 200 vote deficit.

The fact, as easily verifiable with the Beltrami County officials, was that there was NO voter in Beltrami County rejected on that basis. They were aware of an 87 year old who had not signed her ballot AT ALL, which is of course an unacceptable ballot and too late to change now.

It may seem a trifling mistake- until you consider the fact that it is their rationale for examining every single rejected absentee in the state. When you offer a non-existent example to justify such a huge undertaking, that makes it a very big deal. And when you consider the fact that Franken is going farther and farther afield in his rationale for claiming more votes (including the argument that those who voted for Obama, but did not vote at all in the Senate race, intended to vote for Al Franken), then the issue of interpreting absentee ballots becomes a very huge deal.

It's also quite relevant that when someone files a legal action in a court of law based on an affidavit, they swear under oath that what they are presenting to the court for its consideration is true. Franken filed such a lawsuit for the purpose of getting access to absentee voter lists and examine ballots based on the truth of the representation they made to the judge.

It wasn't true. And when your head legal counsel is the former US District Attorney for Minnesota, they know perfectly well that such allegations must be investigated with "due diligence" before they're presented under oath. So was it negligence or fraud? Take your pick.

I strongly suggest you read up on the Washington State governor's contest as well. A very similar situation, in which the Democratic candidate kept demanding repeated recounts and gaining on every recount from mysteriously appearing votes until they finally won.

http://forum.minneapolisfinder.com/viewtopic.php?p=20976#20976