Rusty silver linings

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Today Powerline's Scott Johnson critiques an alternative solution to the Minnesota recount problem. The main points of the post (including the proposed solution) are not as interesting to me as his reiteration of the inconsistent and extra-lawful way the recount has proceeded:



A friend of his who was personally involved in the process noted:



When you change the rules after the game is over, you open the door for cheaters to steal the win.

You are really struggling with this, aren't you? There are multiple layers of rules here.

First, the statute (which they must follow) clearly says that there are only 4 reasons a ballot may be legally rejected. Absent any of those 4 reasons, the ballot MUST be counted. Over 700 ballots (and perhaps as many as 1300) were rejected, but for a reason other than the 4 legal reasons. As a result, they MUST be counted. End of story. Coleman doesn't want to count them (i.e., he wants to steal the election and break the law). Franken wants to count them (i.e. uphold the law).

The next layer then deals with the PROCESS for counting the improperly rejected ballots. Sure, the process may evolve. It is a defect in MN law that they do not clearly establish the process. But MN law DOES clearly mandate that SOME process must be followed (because the ballots MUST be counted). MN law also doesn't make clear who determines the process (there seems to be overlapping jurisdiction or even no jurisdiction at times). And yet, the ballots must be counted to comply with law. So, a process is improvised, and ballots are counted. If no process was improvised, THEN the law would be broken and the election would be stolen.

If your concern is stealing the election and breaking the law, then Franken, I am sure, will happily accept your support.