Where Patience Ends With the Recount
By Brian Lambert
Let me see. I'm doing a little math here. Today, Team Norm Coleman
wanted to do a re-look at sixteen ballots the canvassing board ruled on last
week and, um, also claimed that thirty-four ballots for which challenges were
withdrawn somehow ended up in Al Franken's totals. That's uh . . . carry
the one . . . 50 votes! And whoa golly . . . by sheer coincidence, Franken
currently leads by 46 or 47. Isn't that odd?
To this point, most Minnesotans, and avid recount watchers around the country, have been entirely patient with the process. Mainly because it has been so thoroughly anti-Floridian, which is to say transparent and free of any discernible political big-footing. Both sides have spun their spins, challenged the unchallengeable, and countered the other's silly legal gambits. But as long as that has been peripheral noise to a process that counted every vote, the public has put up with it. Good for us.
But we are now fast approaching the moment when all the votes--challenged, absentee, what have you--will have been counted as best and as transparently as humanly possible. Once that point is reached and the canvassing board can certify a winner, I know my patience will have expired, and I don't think I'm alone.
I called Hamline School of Business professor Dave Schultz, an oft-quoted "expert source" on political matters (he also teaches election law the the U of M's law school). My curiosity was how he thought the "court of public opinion " might react to whoever refuses to accept the verdict of the actual ballot-counting? My sense is that Minnesotans have no appetite for legal gaming that would attempt to invalidate all the open, earnest work that has been going on. We've been nice about it up until now. We won't be if it looks like this thing is going to get re-fried with legal smoke and mirrors.
Schultz, who says he makes as many TV appearances as he does "because I don't drool on camera," believes, as most do, that "we're probably not going to have a resolution by January 6," which is when the new Senate is to be sworn in. "[This] increases the potential that Gov. Pawlenty will weigh in," with an interim appointment, "presumably Coleman." (Pawlenty could send Carol Molnau out to D. C. on a thirty-day pass.)
"It presents an interesting dilemma for Pawlenty," he says, "because what does he do if Franken is still holding a lead, however small? Pawlenty, after all, is a man who may want to run for a third term or who may have presidential aspirations. He has to ask himself how would that play [appointing the candidate losing after an exhaustive recount, or rather appointing anyone other than the winner]? That situation pits several different and very interesting political self-interests against each other."
In general, Schultz--like many others--sees Coleman in a difficult situation, if only that as the recount exercises due diligence with every credible aspect of ballot-counting. Coleman's legal challenges to date have been directed toward vote suppression while Franken's strategy has been the opposite, counting everything.
Point being, Coleman is at--or very close to--the point where the only way he wins is by suppressing votes, which is not something that will go unnoticed--or play too well with the public--after all the attention this thing has received.
"Exactly," Schultz says. "That's the way he has to play it and the way that he has. He's gone to Ramsey County Court once and the Supreme Court twice in essence attempting to suppress votes, and he's lost each time."
The morning after the election, the question/joke was, "What kind of credibility does anyone have winning a two-and-a-half-million vote election by 200 votes?" As the recount has gone on, the joke has gotten even darker. Forty-six votes? Are you kidding me?
"It's actually worse than that," says Schultz, pointing out that whoever wins will have to begin a very energetic "fence-mending" campaign, knowing that "58 percent of the state voted against him."
My point here is that as preposterous as 215 sounded, forty-six is even squirrelier, but the diligence and hard-won credibility of the recount establishes--as best any set of humans can determine from the actual ballots--that that is, in fact, the margin. It's a freak-of-the-odds happening, but it is/will be as complete and accurate as mere mortals can hope for. At which point, God help the candidate who says, "I ain't buying it. I'm lawyering this thing until I get the numbers I want."
Frankly, I don't think the public will tolerate a heavy-handed lawsuit from either candidate, and it shouldn't, especially if every ballot has been (re-)counted and the election certified. To push it any further is gross, naked ambition, and you know how we Minnesotans react to the sight of the gross and naked.
"And don't forget the other calculus the losing candidate will have to consider," Schultz says. "Namely that the taxpayers will be on the hook for defending the recount if they choose to sue the state. How does that play with the budget looking the way it is?"
And how many websites would be up the next day with a running total of "Tax Dollars You've Spent Defending Yourself from (Al Franken/Norm Coleman)?"
To this point, most Minnesotans, and avid recount watchers around the country, have been entirely patient with the process. Mainly because it has been so thoroughly anti-Floridian, which is to say transparent and free of any discernible political big-footing. Both sides have spun their spins, challenged the unchallengeable, and countered the other's silly legal gambits. But as long as that has been peripheral noise to a process that counted every vote, the public has put up with it. Good for us.
But we are now fast approaching the moment when all the votes--challenged, absentee, what have you--will have been counted as best and as transparently as humanly possible. Once that point is reached and the canvassing board can certify a winner, I know my patience will have expired, and I don't think I'm alone.
I called Hamline School of Business professor Dave Schultz, an oft-quoted "expert source" on political matters (he also teaches election law the the U of M's law school). My curiosity was how he thought the "court of public opinion " might react to whoever refuses to accept the verdict of the actual ballot-counting? My sense is that Minnesotans have no appetite for legal gaming that would attempt to invalidate all the open, earnest work that has been going on. We've been nice about it up until now. We won't be if it looks like this thing is going to get re-fried with legal smoke and mirrors.
Schultz, who says he makes as many TV appearances as he does "because I don't drool on camera," believes, as most do, that "we're probably not going to have a resolution by January 6," which is when the new Senate is to be sworn in. "[This] increases the potential that Gov. Pawlenty will weigh in," with an interim appointment, "presumably Coleman." (Pawlenty could send Carol Molnau out to D. C. on a thirty-day pass.)
"It presents an interesting dilemma for Pawlenty," he says, "because what does he do if Franken is still holding a lead, however small? Pawlenty, after all, is a man who may want to run for a third term or who may have presidential aspirations. He has to ask himself how would that play [appointing the candidate losing after an exhaustive recount, or rather appointing anyone other than the winner]? That situation pits several different and very interesting political self-interests against each other."
In general, Schultz--like many others--sees Coleman in a difficult situation, if only that as the recount exercises due diligence with every credible aspect of ballot-counting. Coleman's legal challenges to date have been directed toward vote suppression while Franken's strategy has been the opposite, counting everything.
Point being, Coleman is at--or very close to--the point where the only way he wins is by suppressing votes, which is not something that will go unnoticed--or play too well with the public--after all the attention this thing has received.
"Exactly," Schultz says. "That's the way he has to play it and the way that he has. He's gone to Ramsey County Court once and the Supreme Court twice in essence attempting to suppress votes, and he's lost each time."
The morning after the election, the question/joke was, "What kind of credibility does anyone have winning a two-and-a-half-million vote election by 200 votes?" As the recount has gone on, the joke has gotten even darker. Forty-six votes? Are you kidding me?
"It's actually worse than that," says Schultz, pointing out that whoever wins will have to begin a very energetic "fence-mending" campaign, knowing that "58 percent of the state voted against him."
My point here is that as preposterous as 215 sounded, forty-six is even squirrelier, but the diligence and hard-won credibility of the recount establishes--as best any set of humans can determine from the actual ballots--that that is, in fact, the margin. It's a freak-of-the-odds happening, but it is/will be as complete and accurate as mere mortals can hope for. At which point, God help the candidate who says, "I ain't buying it. I'm lawyering this thing until I get the numbers I want."
Frankly, I don't think the public will tolerate a heavy-handed lawsuit from either candidate, and it shouldn't, especially if every ballot has been (re-)counted and the election certified. To push it any further is gross, naked ambition, and you know how we Minnesotans react to the sight of the gross and naked.
"And don't forget the other calculus the losing candidate will have to consider," Schultz says. "Namely that the taxpayers will be on the hook for defending the recount if they choose to sue the state. How does that play with the budget looking the way it is?"
And how many websites would be up the next day with a running total of "Tax Dollars You've Spent Defending Yourself from (Al Franken/Norm Coleman)?"
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
I'm rooting for some kind of bang, bang finish here with a whole maelstrom of cliffhangers coming together simultaneously, like in the movie "Traffic." My Christmas wish is Normy Boy being sucked down in a vortex of Kazeminy-sleaze, done in at the end by T-Paw. How delicious would that be?
LAMBERT: Now is that the spirit of Christmas?
Posted by: Mike V. on December 23, 2008 at 10:19 PM
so does anyone ever come out and say "I'm not going to lawyer this out"? I really don't see Coleman doing that, but Franken could endear himself to a lot of people with that sort of attitude...
And how many people now wish they could recast that ballot? (oops, I meant bollat...)
Merry Christmas!
LAMBERT: Yeah, Merry Christmas to you, too. But I say woe to whoever games this thing after a remarkably transparent recount.
Posted by: Dan Prokosch on December 23, 2008 at 10:57 PM
"What kind of credibility does anyone have winning a two and a half million vote election by 200 votes?"
Interesting angle here, I hadn't really thought of that (then again, after the exhausting election season I've tried not to think about any politics after Nov. 4).
I think both Franken and Coleman are both incapable of mending fences.
Coleman because at this point anyone with any sense knows he's nothing but a political opportunist that will tilt with the faintest hint of where the political winds will blow. He can just dig in and cater to Powerline crowd, all the while being a bit of a moderate like he has been with the last Congress. But he's wounded for sure.
Franken because he's never been in any situation in his life where's he's actually had to (perhaps around the SNL writer's table when a Stuart bit rubbed a guest host the wrong way), and is pretty tone-deaf politically, again because he doesn't have that experience.
And both guys' are just despised by their loyal opposition...seems like there's no compromise there.
If Coleman is declared the winner, he won't survive the term as his ethics problems are going to continue to grow (and there's something there, there).
If Franken is declared the winner he could - its a big if - end up being one of those guys where some of the voting public sees him as not really as bad as they feared - a lot of Barkley folks who would normally have voted DFL could come back. I did volunteer work for the DFL and there were a LOT of people who were more than willing to re-elect a Muslim Congressman and vote for a black man with Hussein for a middle name for President than vote for Franken. But he's probably wounded as well.
If Al didn't get the DFL nom. this would have been a romp of Klobuchar-like proportions.
LAMBERT: I still fail to see Ciresi doing any better. But, as I say, I'll be stunned if Franken the Senator isn't a reliably progressive vote on all the huge-scale repair work that must be done post Cheney/Bush.
Posted by: Essar1 on December 24, 2008 at 8:04 AM
I think neither guy goes to Washington with much credibility or (obviously) a mandate. Rather than screwing around with the lawsuits that seem almost sure to be filed shortly (imagine that!), I think the two candidates should jointly withdraw their candidacies and request that Pawlenty appoint Jim Ramstad to the seat for two years, with a special election to follow.
I suppose you're wondering where you can smoke some of what I've been smoking.
LAMBERT: I'm guessing we're not talking Camel straights, right?
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on December 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM
I'm still stuck on how/whether t-Pow can appoint a temp. The NYT says he can, he says he's investigated it, but H Reid says he can't unless the Senate (Reid) declares the seat 'vacant.' Now its been vacant for 6 years of course, but I can't see Reid putting Pawlenty in a position to put Coleman back. There's going to be some important votes the day after O gets the keys, and Coleman can't be trusted for anything. He voted for the TARP bailout, but against the Detroit bridge loan.
LAMBERT: Personally, I think Pawlenty would like to punt this one. But he's got to play nice with the RNC which wants to do everything it can to create a "rightful winner" aura around Coleman, a la Bush in Florida circa 2000.
Posted by: Pierce County Politician on December 24, 2008 at 10:20 AM
If Pawlenty plays nice now with the national GOP, he will forever be their little spanking boy. He got royally screwed in favor of Sarah Palin. Were I T-Paw, I'd be blunt as Blago in what I expected in exchange for that Senate appointment.
LAMBERT: It's hard to imagine our guy being "as blunt as Blago" into a telephone.
Posted by: Anne on December 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM
So far, a fairly neat and orderly recount. I really hope we can keep this thing out of the courts and not spend millions chasing a few hundred votes. OK, I must have drank too much eggnog.
On a totally unrelated subject, the Wall Street Journal published today at Barklays has valued the Boston Globe at $20M, down from $550M two years ago. Merry Christmas Avista!
LAMBERT: It's astonishing. But check out the stock prices on Gannett, Clear Channel and Citadel (KQRS's owner).
Posted by: Dave on December 26, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Yes, yes...we are SO PROUD of our un-Florida-like recount in all its transparent glory! Sorry, but the whole exercise has been a complete waste of time and resources in a doomed effort to realize the true intent of the voters. The fact is that we knew the true intent of the voters back in November: It was a tie. We should have flipped a coin the day after the election.
As has been reported elsewhere, including in the New York Times, it's impossible to determine the "winner" in a contest this cloes and involving so many total votes. The margin of error...no matter how you count or interpret intent...will always be greater than the margin of victory.
What this all means is that when the vote is close enough to recount it's really too close for a recount to make sense. Minnesota law is completely backwards...the closer the final tally, the less point in recounting.
Meanwhile, call me a cynic, but I think many of the voices celebrating the wonderful honesty and transparency of the recount belong to people who like the way it appears to be headed.
LAMBERT: Let me call you a cynic. And obviously an instant run-off election would be the ideal solution, especially here in third party loving Minnesota. But all I'm defending is the process as the laws are written. God help anyone reared amid the squalid-to-non-existent ethics of Florida, but this thing has followed the legal standards and been as transparent as anyone could hope. Obviously I'll like it more if Franken wins. But had the recount confirmed Coleman's narrow victory I would not have been pleased to see Franken try to lawyer his way to victory.
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on December 27, 2008 at 11:59 AM
At least if Coleman or Franken sues, the taxpayers will only be footing the bill for one side in the suit – unlike when the U of M and the Met Council were fighting over light rail and taxpayers were funding both sides in the dispute or now when MPR threatens to sue over the light rail route, when again, Minnesotans will have tax dollars in play on both sides of the issue.
LAMBERT: By "tax dollars in play" in the MPR deal -- which may be the single silliest thing Bill Kling has ever gotten himself in to -- I assume you mean that massive state "subsidy" of public radio? In the court of public opinion, the state's modest support of MPR, (which is arguable at least in terms of what is not given to other public broadcasters), has at least been shown to garner no serious disagreement. I don't think the same will be said if either of these guys tries to void an exhaustive recount with slick (and expensive) lawyering.
Posted by: Craig Westover on December 29, 2008 at 10:10 AM