If Betty McCullom had not knifed Al Franken in the back for no real advantage for herself in doing it, what might results be now? And if Priscilla Lord Faris, a lesser factor but an impediment, had stayed out of things instead of fostering more DFL attacking, what might we have? I expect neither McCullom nor Faris embraces Norm Coleman, but he is who they helped. And who were those "Draft Ciresi!" people, a lingering question since their mischief now seems more significant than the posslbly GOP carping it was "back then."
There are lots of "What would the numbers be" games to guess at. As for the numbers, what they are as a latest number, per Strib, Patricia Lopez reporting, latest update at 6:33 am this morning:
Franken's Deficit: 236 votes
Just as Secretary of State Mark Ritchie was explaining to reporters the recount process in one of the narrowest elections in Minnesota history, an aide rushed in with news: Pine County's Partridge Township had revised its vote total upward -- another 100 votes for Democratic candidate Al Franken, putting him within .011 percentage points of Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman.
The reason for the change? Exhausted county officials had accidentally entered 24 for Franken instead of 124 when the county's final votes were tallied at 5:25 Wednesday morning.
"That's why we have recounts," Ritchie said, surveying the e-mail sent in from the county auditor. "Human error. People make mistakes."
The margin in the tightest Senate race in the country bounced like the stock market throughout the day, with the difference between Coleman and Franken dropping, then rising briefly to 590 votes before shooting down to a razor-thin 236 by day's end.
In a reversal of the previous day, when Coleman had declared victory and suggested that Franken should waive a recount, Coleman kept to himself on Thursday, while Franken called reporters to talk about the prospects for a continued narrowing of the count.
"Coleman said there was no reason for a recount, that there would be no movement," Franken said Thursday, a day after unofficial results initially showed Coleman with a 725-vote advantage. "But you see that it's more than halved and the recount hasn't even started. This election will be decided by the voters, not by the candidates."
Brian Sullivan, a Republican National Committee member, said that "Norm is in the best position because he's still got the most votes, but if he was nervous on Tuesday, he's really got reason to be nervous today."
Exhausted officials, no matter how exhausted, simply should not screw up. It happened, but it is inexcusable. Not with your vote, not with mine. And it is curious that the more second-checking there is the better the Franken numbers emerge. A skeptic might make more of it than Mark Ritchie did.
If the current gap is 236, that means if 119 had gone the other way it would be Franken up by 2, and a real humdinger then.
This recount and the legal challenges have national consequences in scope, and it is up to the two parties' national mechanisms to fund the contest, not local money, not Al, not Norm. Nor for Nasser Kazeminy even to be funding, although he doubtlessly has a preference.
It was the most expensive Senate race ever, and we only are in act three of a five act play. Prelims, stretch run, voting-counting, recount, litigation and ultimate Senate seating questions.
And throughout the play, from stretch run on, the sub-plot, who is Nasser Kazeminy and what did he buy, will continue unfolding.
For more, have a look at MinnPost.com, here.
_________UPDATE_________
Do read that Strib article, it says more beyond that earlier excerpt. In particular, this - possibilities of litigation, AND the margin of error of the optical scan voting machines, functioning at best, no unusually scratched lenses, no abnormal amounts of dust in the optical path - exceeds the current count gap:
The recount system is primitive but thorough, requiring officials in each county to gather paper ballots, visually determine each voter's choice and begin sorting. Observers from both campaigns can challenge ballots, which would then go into a separate pile. In those cases, the state canvassing board, made up of two state Supreme Court justices, two district court judges and the secretary of state, would make the final call.
But even then, candidates can dispute the results of the recount and take the matter to court.
"If this does not go down that road, I would be surprised," said Joe Mansky, Ramsey County elections manager and an election expert. "Frankly, they [candidates] should go to court as rapidly as possible so they'll have the protection of the rules of civil procedure."
Mansky said that on average, about two of every 1,000 ballots are not counted by the scanners for various reasons, which could add 6,000 ballots in the Senate race -- more than enough to provide a decisive result.
The highlighted text is on margin of error. But what to make of that "protection of the rules of civil procedure," what are the dimensions of that?
Discovery rights, plus having a pending action in case a TRO (temporary restraining order) is needed, or some other extraordinary relief? However, that "file fast" comment is unclear to me. Where would you file? It is a federal election, but for a State's senator, not for President. The Constitution is silent about how elections are run, and that traditionally has been a state's right and power to determine, subject to Baker v. Carr [one person one vote] and other equal protection preemption.
Yet wouldn't you have to file an action in every county where you have a counting beef, if state court venue applies? Then how can you file anything before the recount starts, unless there's a clear registration or other polling place irregularity to litigate? What's the precedent in Gore v. Bush? As best as I recall it was dueling benches, with the nine political appointees in DC splitting along party lines to disenfranchise contrary results in Florida courts. I do recall that opinion taking care to say it was limited as precedent. And it involved the presidency, where the electoral college and installation of the new electee involved timing pressures absent where only the seating of a single Senator is at issue. I see it as a State court issue. Some other published comments, noted in other Crabgrass posts talked of a three person review panel, one from each party, and the third a judge; with, presumably the issue being one of original jurisdiction in the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the panel's activity and decisions. Such a procedure argues against the quoted Mansky fast-filing statement. Where would you file and what would you claim before a recount is done? It seems it would be thrown out of court as not yet ripe for decision, or on jurisdictional grounds, not for a District Court.
If there is any reader insight beyond that, please post it in a comment.
I don't see Gore v. Bush as relevant. I don't see it as a federal question. It is the Minnesota state judiciary that should decide. Absent an unconstitutional breach of someone's rights, the U.S. Supreme Court should defer and refuse certiorari to review a final State judgment.
_______FURTHER UPDATE_______
If you want another thought to spin, have a look at Big E's post, MnBlue, here, on instant runoff voting - how it could make the IP less a spoiler, it might have favored Hatch against Pawlenty, depending on how Hutchinson voters viewed their second choice, and who of the three they thought worse. It could have affected the Franken position, Madia in MN 3, and Tinklenberg in MN 6. It certainly would be expected to favor the entrenchment of the two party dominance, where IP candidates draw 10-20% of a vote.
______LATEST UPDATE______
2:00 pm, Friday, Nov. 7 ---- Franken would have needed a 121 vote swing to lead.
Here.