My problem here is that as to many absentee voters, there is no time to mail a new ballot and get it returned prior to election day. We also cannot assume that somebody who voted for Wellstone would necessarily vote for Mondale. http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,67031,00.html MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota's Democratic Party is suing the Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer over her office's handling of the substitution of deceased Sen. Paul Wellstone's name on election ballots. First reported by Fox News, former Vice President Walter Mondale is to announce on Wednesday that he will launch a campaign to replace Wellstone, who died in a plane crash last Friday. Under the state's current plan, people who have already mailed in their ballots and want to change their vote will have to go to a local election office and get a new ballot, something Democrats argue is not possible for many absentee voters. "It's not the way we're supposed to be doing things in Minnesota. We don't want to be another Florida," said state Democratic Party attorney Alan Weinblatt. The lawsuit seeks a court order allowing voters to have a new absentee ballot mailed to them promptly if they want to make a change. "When the DFL [Democratic-Farmer-Labor] Party submits the name for filing, which we expect on Thursday, to fill the vacancy, a nomination, only at that time do we have the authority to put the name on that ballot," Kiffmeyer said. Democrats would prefer that absentee votes for Wellstone be automatically transferred to Mondale, contradicting the plan created by Kiffmeyer, a Republican, and Attorney General Mike Hatch, a Democrat. "We can't assume that just because Paul Wellstone's name is here now that [voters] automatically want to transfer to whoever the new nominee is. We can't assume that. We can't read those minds," Kiffmeyer said. That bothers the usually talkative independent Gov. Jesse Ventura. Through his aides, Ventura said the only fair thing to do is to count the absentee votes for Mondale. If not, he fears that more lawsuits will delay certification of the election. Ventura plans to appoint someone to fill out Wellstone's term, which expires in January. Officials say that he is leaning toward a Democrat who does not want the job permanently, but is willing to fill in for a few months. At least one county is breaking ranks with the state plan. Officials in Ramsey County, which includes St. Paul, say they will mail a new ballot to those who ask. "We're not going to question someone as to why their ballot is spoiled," said Darwin Lookingbill, director of the county attorney's civil division. "If they call we're going to send them another ballot." To accommodate the Mondale substitution at the polls a special supplemental ballot will be handed out covering just the U.S. Senate race. Weinblatt adds that the extra ballot is confusing. "Because of the shortness of time, and because of the confusion that has developed over the weekend, I am asking that ballot instructions be put on the ballot in English, in Spanish, in Hmong and in Russian," Weinblatt said. The legal battle will play out in front of Minnesota's Supreme Court on Oct. 31, in what is expected to be the first round in what could be several fights likely to spill over after Election Day. Many say they don't want a situation similar to Florida in 2000, where the presidential election was left undecided for 36 days. Fox News' Steve Brown and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Democrats would prefer that absentee votes for Wellstone be automatically transferred to Mondale, contradicting the plan created by Kiffmeyer, a Republican, and Attorney General Mike Hatch, a Democrat. OK, this is just plain stupid.
I'm hoping the reason you believe it's stupid and the reason I believe it's stupid is the same. It would only work if people always voted for the same party--without exception. Get a clue people, some of us would like to vote for candidates, not party affiliation. Otherwise, why not make one standard ballot. No need to put names on the ballot, just "Republican" and "Democrat." Maybe even "Independant" or "Green." Switching the votes from Wellstone to Mondale is bound to violate some kind of law, isn't it? I can't see something like that standing in court.
So then let them return it later, considering the new senator doesn't have to be sworn in for 8 weeks anyway.
Yeah, it is stupid, but I love how fox news just generically says that "Democrats would prefer (patently unfair solution)" in order to make them look dumb. WHy don't they give a source or a quote? I guess it just means all democrats are unanimously in favor of this. Well, I voted for a democrat back in 2000 so I guess that means me, too. Fair and balanced as always.
That's just a shorthand way of referring to a Party position, likely enunciated as such by a party operative or perhaps a press release in Minnesota. All the news stations use such constructions from time to time (to refer to both Democrats and Republicans). It isn't meant to say that every single individual Democrat thinks this way. It's meant to say that the Party's position is (or thought to be) that. For example, from an MSNBC story: The Democrats allege that the current plan, outlined by Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, a Republican, and Attorney General Mike Hatch, a Democrat, “may well disenfranchise persons who may cast those ballots for Sen. Wellstone.”
Most reporters are lazy. To get the "other side" of the story they often call someone up who will give them a soundbite and then label the idea as coming from some group or organization that the quote is affiliated with but not bear on the story. I worked on a Presidential campaign a long time ago, and when there was an article about one of our opponents, the reporter might call us. Of course we would bash the other guy and more often than not, what we said would appear in the story attributed to "party insiders" or some such. I guess we could be called insiders, but before we were insiders, we were enemies from another campaign. This happens all the time. For instance, if you're writing about Dems and want to spin your story to the right you go get a Conservative Dem who gives you an oppositional quote and then write it as if the criticism were coming from the majority of Dems. In most cases, you can tell when a reporter's writing something in a way that slants the story.
Both parties have thousands of lawyers in the field for this election and expect there to be a number of contested races. I have a bad feeling this is going to get really ugly, especially if control of the Senate comes down to one state.
Not feasible. Probably not even legal. All votes must be cast by the time the polls close on election day. There has to be some kind of finality to elections. The plan in MN was devised by a Republican and a Democrat. Each party had a representative. They ahould go with that. Instead they're going to battle it in court. And now there are counties that are going to use different rules that don't conform with the plan. Sounds a lot like what the Supreme Court struck down in Bush v. Gore.
I think the question is: What way is more likely to provide justice? There are 3 solutions: 1. Don't count the early ballots at all. Ensures fairness to Mondale, but disenfranchises voters who went Republican or independent. 2. Count the Mondale votes for Wellstone Relatively fair, but disenfranchises a small portion of Wellstone voters who may have a personal hatred of Mondale. Very few, but I'm sure there are a few such people. Of course, by doing this, you also count the ballots that went Republican that might have went for Mondale. Overall, this solution might even itself out. Wellstone was... ahh... sort of an ass at times in a way Modnale isn't. 3. Count the ballots, tough luck for Mondale. It's most fair in a strict sense, but in reality, disenfranchises roughly 50% of the early voting electorate. Some would vote anyway... but certainly not all. There isn't a good solution. Pretending there is one is silly. It's not fair any way you look at it. If you don't count them, then the Republicans gain a voting advantage because of someone's death. If you do count them, you screw over some voters.
The position quoted is so specific (as opposed to something like "Republicans support tax cuts") that it HAD to have come from a source and it is irresponsible not to give it. Why don't they say "Minnesota State Democratic Party leaders", etc? Just laziness on the reporters part.
Provided it complies with MN law. Wellstone was beloved in MN...most young voters don't even know who Mondale is. It has been since 1984 since he last ran for public office. Do you want your vote misapplied in hopes that everything will even out? One member from each party in the MN state government came up with a solution that is as good as any. Now the Dems (it was the party spokespeople, not an individual) are complaining about it and wanting to sue.
The Bush v. Gore thing is totally different with regard to the Electoral Count Act, the selection of electors for the electoral college, etc. Anyway, I was proposing a more long term solution rather than anything specific to the instant situation. Since we have all the time between the election and January, it should be put to better use in such situations. I'm sure all that lag time was a good idea back in the 18th century when travel, communication, etc. took forever, but these days its pretty unneccessary.
If the state Democratic Party as an organization (by a vote of its leadership) decides to sue...it is completely proper and correct to say that the Democrats took the action. Oh yeah...except for the Democratic Attorney General who devised the current plan.
It boggles my mind that anybody views this as a real option. You assume that Democrat voters are mindless straight ticket voters? There is a new candidate now, and those who voted for Wellstone need to get a new ballot and vote again. That is the ONLY fair option.
From the NY Times this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/30/politics/30CND-COLE.html "The Star Tribune poll showed that 98 percent of Minnesotans recognize Mr. Mondale's name, and that 66 percent have a favorable image of him. Thirty-one percent said that Mr. Wellstone's death made them more likely to vote for the Democrat on Tuesday." Added edit: I should also note that it's been since the 1950's that LBJ ran a race in Texas and I would bet that his name recognition would be in the high 90's.
True, but in dictum to Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court clearly established that the rules for elections are to be made by the legislature of the state and not the courts. Also established is that any procedure which affects an election (in that case a recount) has to have uniform rules and standards across the state. The fact that certain counties are breaking with the state plan may make the whole thing easily overturned. As to the long term solution you have proposed...they have to have a deadline. MN chose theirs via their duly elected legislature.
Ref-- In Bush v. Gore I thought the SC said the opinion was only for that case and not to be applied as precedent in others. Is this so?
