FUD on the Coleman/Franken election recount

Jim Ragsdale of the Pioneer Press gets it right in his November 12 article:

The Coleman campaign, while promising to "work together to get things done,'' has dished most of the dirt, suggesting that normal bounces in the unofficial results are evidence of vote-tampering or worse. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty jumped in this week, saying that the question is whether "ballots from outside the process are going to be allowed in."

I understand the freak-out factor for the Republican team when the net result of the "unofficial" changes has benefitted Franken, the Democrat. That will be sorted out in the recount. But having our top Republican officials suggest that state and local election officials are crooked is irresponsible and reminiscent of the battle in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Tallahassee in November and December 2000.

In fact, Ragsdale says it so well, I have little to add. He finishes his article with this:

Deep breath time. While it is true that Coleman-Franken is also a statistical dead heat and that vote-counting remains an inexact science, Minnesota has two important elements in its favor.

• An automatic statewide recount law. In Florida in 2000, there was no statewide ballot-by-ballot recount. Gore had to seek hand recounts in selected counties. Minnesota law provides for an automatic recount of all votes in close races. It ends with two district court judges, two Supreme Court justices and Minnesota's Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, a Democrat, voting on challenged ballots and deciding who won.


• "Intent of voter" language. Those good Floridians looking at punch-cards for hours upon hours had no law to guide them to determine what a voter intended when the hole wasn't punched clearly through. Minnesota uses paper ballots marked by voters and counted by optical scanners. For incorrectly marked votes, state law gives officials considerable guidance on how to determine a voter's intent.

That was the civics-class version. It will produce a winner, sometime before Christmas. But Florida showed that there are separate legal and political realms where this battle will also be waged. Either side can go to court and contest the election or challenge specific decisions; there is even the possibility of a court-supervised Recount II.

And the political fight goes on. While the Franken side has been quiet, the Coleman team has not gotten out of campaign mode. When the unofficial results change, the Coleman team issues a statement saying that "improbable and statistically dubious chunks of votes appear and disappear.'' Coleman went to court over Minneapolis absentee ballots that his lawyer later said proved not to be a problem. He fired off demands to vote-counters as if he were dealing with a hostile nation.

The tie will not be broken to everyone's satisfaction. Election officials have to check out all allegations, operate out in the open and show their work; but we as citizens do not have to assume the worst until proven otherwise. And we can judge Coleman and Franken by how they allow their supporters to behave in this difficult challenge to our precious democratic system.

Deep breath, indeed. Coleman should rethink his criticism, essentially of every person involved in the election process, and his fear-mongering. He knows the facts better than what his statements say; his complaints about a few hundred votes changing are ridiculous in the face of his benefiting from changes in the thousands in the very same manner in the 2002 election.