Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Minn. board may act on voided absentee ballots

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 07:29 PM
Original message
Minn. board may act on voided absentee ballots
The head of a key board in Minnesota's unsettled Senate election said Friday the panel would hear a dispute over whether to reconsider some rejected absentee ballots if one of the campaigns asks.

That appears certain as Democrat Al Franken's campaign announced Thursday it would go that route. Franken currently trails Republican Sen. Norm Coleman by 206 votes.

The five-member canvassing board led by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is due to meet Tuesday to certify results and approve the plan for an automatic statewide recount. Earlier this week, Ritchie said wrangling over invalidated absentee ballots fell outside the administrative process and would have to be settled in court.

"That's a judicial process and we're not part of that," Ritchie said then.

When asked again about such ballots Friday, Ritchie said it will be up to the canvassing board to decide what to do.

"If somebody brings an issue it will get a hearing by the whole state canvassing board and we will stay there until those decisions are made," he told reporters.

Besides Ritchie, two Supreme Court justices and two district judges make up the canvassing board. The panel will rule on ballots challenged in the recount.

The fate of the voided ballots has emerged as a flashpoint in the close race, where the candidates are separated by 0.007 of a percentage point.

Franken's campaign has sued to get access to data on voters whose absentee ballots were rejected by local elections officials. Coleman's campaign argues it would be an invasion of voter privacy.

The case is pending and has yet to be scheduled for a hearing.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/34485189.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC