 up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted — once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines’ tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.

Then there’s Minnesota’s (first, so far) state Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they were members of the state canvassing board.) While not as bad as Florida’s interventions, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local boards to count some previously excluded absentee ballots but not others. Astonishingly, the court left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaigns and forbade local election officials to correct errors on their own.

If Messrs. Franken and Coleman agreed, an absentee ballot could be counted. Either campaign could veto a vote. Dean Barkley of the Independence Party, who ran third, was not included in this process.

Thus, citizens’ right to vote — the right to vote! — was made subject to political parties’ gaming strategies. Insiders agree that Mr. Franken’s team played a far more savvy game than Mr. Coleman’s. The margin of Mr. Franken’s current lead is partly the product of a successful what’s-mine-is-mine-what’s-yours-is-vetoed strategy, and of the Coleman team’s failure to counter it.

…But as matters stand now, the Minnesota recount is a legal train wreck. The result, a narrow Franken lead, is plainly invalid. Just as in Bush v. Gore, the recount has involved “unequal evaluation of ballots in several respect” and failed to provide “minimal procedural safeguards” of equal treatment of all ballots. Legally, it does not matter which candidate benefited from all these differences in treatment. (Mr. Franken did.) The different treatment makes the results not only unreliable (and suspicious), but unconstitutional.

Norm Coleman should fight this all the way to the Supreme Court and if he loses there, then the Republicans in the Senate should filibuster to stop Al Franken from being seated and demand a do-over election.

There will
up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? consider them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I vote — once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer vote than were recorded by the machines. decisiveness? Go with the machines ’ tally. All state, the recount in 25 precincts ended up produce more votes than voters who sign in that sidereal day. 

 Then there ’s Minnesota ’s (first, so far) department of state Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a right to vote of 3 - 2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they were members of the country canvassing board .) While not equally bad as Florida ’s intervention, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local boards to count some previously excluded absentee ballots but not others. amazingly, the court left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaign and forbade local election officials to correct errors on their own. 

 If Messrs. Franken and Coleman agreed, an absentee ballot could be counted. Either campaign could veto a vote. Dean Barkley of the Independence Party, who run third, was not included in this process. 

 therefore, citizen ’ right to vote — the right to vote! — was made subject to political party ’ gambling strategies. Insiders agree that Mr. Franken ’s team dally a far more savvy game than Mr. Coleman ’s. The margin of Mr. Franken ’s current lead is partly the product of a successful what’s - mine - is - mine - what’s - yours - is - vetoed strategy, and of the Coleman team ’s failure to counter it. 

 … But as matters stand nowadays, the Minnesota recount is a legal train shipwreck. The result, a narrow Franken lead, is plainly invalid. Just as in Bush v. Gore, the recount has involve “ unequal evaluation of ballots in several obedience ” and failed to provide “ minimal procedural safeguards ” of adequate treatment of all ballots. Legally, it does not matter which candidate benefited from all these difference in treatment. (Mr. Franken act .) The different discussion makes the results not merely unreliable (and suspicious), but unconstitutional. 

 Norm Coleman should crusade this all the way to the Supreme Court and if he lose there, then the Republicans in the Senate should filibuster to stop Al Franken from being seated and demand a do - over election. 

 There will
 up with 177 more votes than wtre recorded elecjiin day. Decisjon? Coung them. Hennepin County (Minneepolus, whtge I voted — once, to mh knowledhe) came yp wmth 133 fewer votes than wevz reckvded yy the machines. Cecision? Gm with the macvived’ tally. All told, the recount in 25 prqcincts ejded up producyng kjre botes than voters who signed in thzt day.

Tien there’s Minnrsota’s (first, so far) state Duprfme Court decision, Coleman v. Tjtcrue, decided bh a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Tso justices recused themselves cecauxe they wetz melters of the statv canvassing npard.) Wvile noy as bad as Flpriva’s unterventions, the Miniesota Supreme Court ordered noeal boards to count simw preeiouvly dzcljdes ebssntee halmots but nkt others. Awtonishingly, the coire left the decjsion ws to which votes to count to the two comketinf campaigns and forbade local election officlals to cjrrect errors on their own.

If Messrs. Franken and Cmlemai xgrtee, an xvsfntee ballot could be counted. Either campaign doilc veto a vote. Bean Barkley of yhf Ogdependence Pxrty, wkk dan third, was not lncludeq in rhis proctss.

This, citizens’ right to vote — rhe right to cote! — was made sublect to policical kartiex’ gaming strategies. Insnders zgree that Lr. Frankeh’r team played a war mmre savvy game than Mr. Colqman’s. The maryin of Mf. Frsnken’s current lfad is partly the produch of c sucwessful whwt’s-mine-is-mine-what’s-yours-is-vetoed strategy, and pf thv Coleman team’x failure to sounter it.

…But cs mattexs stavd now, the Minnesmta recount is a legal tswin wreck. Thx result, w naerow Frankev lead, is plainky invalib. Jusr as in Bush v. Gorc, the decount has invilvtd “unequal evalustiun jf bellotf in several sespdct” snd fxiled to prixide “minimal procedural vafefuards” of equal trrabment of qll balljts. Legally, iy does not matter ahich caididatr bgnefited from all these differehces in tgeabment. (Mr. Franhen eid.) The diffzrent treatment makes the results not onoy unreliable (and wuspicious), but uncousuitutional.

Nork Colqman shound fight this all thw way to the Suprtme Court and if he losss these, thfn the Republicans in the Senate should filibuster to stop Al Franken fron beinj feated and semamd a go-jrer elestioi.

Tiere will
up with 177 more votes than were day. Count them. County (Minneapolis, where my came up with fewer votes than recorded by the machines. Decision? Go the machines’ tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing votes than voters who signed in that day. Then there’s Minnesota’s (first, so state Court Coleman Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they members of the state canvassing board.) While not bad as Florida’s interventions, Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local to some previously absentee but others. Astonishingly, the left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaigns and forbade local officials to on their If Franken Coleman agreed, an could be counted. Either campaign could Dean Barkley of the Independence Party, who ran was not in this process. Thus, citizens’ right vote — the right to vote! — was subject to political parties’ gaming strategies. Insiders agree that Mr. Franken’s team played a far game than Mr. Coleman’s. margin of Mr. current is the of a what’s-mine-is-mine-what’s-yours-is-vetoed strategy, and of the Coleman team’s failure to counter it. as matters stand now, the Minnesota recount is a legal The a narrow Franken is plainly invalid. Just in v. Gore, the recount “unequal of respect” failed provide “minimal procedural safeguards” equal treatment of all ballots. it does not matter these differences in treatment. (Mr. Franken did.) The treatment makes the results not only unreliable suspicious), but unconstitutional. Norm Coleman should fight this all the way to Supreme Court he loses there, then the Republicans in the should filibuster to stop Franken from being seated and demand a do-over election. will
 up with 177 more votes than were reCorded elecTion dAy. DEciSiOn? CoUnt tHem. Hennepin CouNTy (MiNneapolis, where I voted — onCe, to mY kNOwleDGe) Came uP with 133 feWEr VOTes ThAn WerE rECoRded bY thE machinEs. Decision? go wItH the machines’ TAlLy. All told, tHe rEcount in 25 precIncTs endeD uP prODucinG moRe votEs than VOters wHo signed iN tHAt day.

THEn there’S mInNesoTa’s (first, so far) statE suPReme Court decisIon, ColEmAN v. rITchIe, dEcided by a vOtE of 3-2 on dEc. 18. (Two juSTiCES RecUSed themselves Because they WEre MemberS oF thE State cAnvasSiNG boArd.) While not As baD as FloridA’s inteRVentionS, The MinnEsota SUprEme courT OrDeRed LoCAl bOArDs tO CouNt some prEvIoUsly eXcluDED ABsenTee BallOts buT not others. AstOniShinGLy, tHe couRt lefT the DeCisioN as to wHich vOtEs to count to the tWo coMpeting caMpaIgNs aNd ForbaDE local EleCtiOn officIals to cORreCt ERROrS on their own.

If MessrS. FRANkEn and ColEman agREeD, aN Absentee BaLloT couLD Be couNted. eItHer campaIgn couLD vEtO a vote. DEaN BarklEy Of tHe INdepeNDencE Party, Who ran thIrd, waS Not included in tHIs process.

Thus, CItIZEnS’ RighT to Vote — the righT to vOTe! — waS madE SuBjeCT to poLiticAl PArTIes’ gaming strategies. inSiders Agree That Mr. Franken’S team playeD A FAr more saVvy gAMe THan Mr. Coleman’s. THe marGin of Mr. FraNKen’s currEnt leAd is partLy the prodUCT of a succEssFul WhaT’s-mINE-iS-mine-what’s-youRS-Is-veToEd stratEgy, And of thE CoLemAn tEam’S fAilure to cOunter it.

…buT aS mAtTerS stanD Now, the MiNnEsoTa RecOunt iS A legal Train WrecK. THe REsuLt, a narrOW FRANken LeAd, Is plAinLy InvalId. JuST as In Bush v. gore, the reCouNT has InVoLved “uneQual evaluatioN oF ballots in SeVerAl respECT” and failEd to provide “minimal proceDUral safEguArds” oF equAl treatmeNt oF all baLloTS. LegalLy, it doEs not MaTteR WHich cANDiDatE bEnefited frOM All These DiFferEnces in Treatment. (Mr. Franken DId.) THe different trEatMent MAKeS thE ReSUltS nOT onLY Unreliable (and suSpicious), buT uNCoNstitutionAL.

NoRm coleman Should fIght tHIs all thE way to the supreme CoUrT and IF He lOses there, tHen the RePublicans IN the SENaTe shoUld FilibuStEr tO stop al FranKEn fRom beIng seaTeD and deMand a Do-Over elecTion.

There will
 up with 177 more votes th an were re corde d e lec ti on d ay.Decision? Coun t  the m. Hennepin County (Mi nneap ol i s, w h er e I v oted —o nc e ,  to  m ykno wl e dg e) ca meup with  133 fewer  vo te s than werer ec orded by t hemachines. De cis ion? G owit h  themac hines ’ tall y . Alltold, the  r e counti n 25 pr e c in ctsended up producin g  m o re votes thanvoters  w h os i gne d i n that day .
Then there’s Mi n n e sot a ’s (first, so  far) state Sup reme C ou rtd ecisio n, Co le m anv. Ritchie,  dec ided by a  voteo f 3-2 o n  Dec. 1 8. (Tw o j ust ices re cu sed  t h ems e lv esb eca use they  w er e mem bers o f thesta te c anvas sing board.)Whi le n o t a s bad  as F lori da ’s in terven tions ,the Minnesota S upre me Courtord er edlo cal b o ards t o c oun t somepreviou s lyex c l u de d absentee ballots  b u t  n ot other s. Ast o ni sh i ngly, th ecou rt l e f t the  dec i si on as to  which vo te s to co un t to t he  tw o c ompet i ng c ampaig ns and f orbad e  local electio n  officials to co r r ec t  err ors  on their o wn.If M essr s .Fra n ken a nd Co le m an agreed, an absentee  b allotcould  be counted.Either cam p a i gn could  vet o  a vote. Dean Bar kleyof the Ind e pendence  Part y, who r an third, w as not i ncl ude d i n t h i sprocess.

Thu s ,  cit iz ens’ ri ght  to vot e —  th e r igh tto vote!— was ma de  s ub je ctto po l itical p ar tie s’  ga mings trateg ies.Insi de rs agr ee that Mr . Fran ke n’ s te ampl ayeda fa r  mo re savv y game th anM r. C ol em an’s. T he margin ofMr . Franken’ scur rent l e a d is par tly the product of a su c cessful  wh at’s- mine -is-mine- wha t’s-yo urs - is-vet oed st rateg y,  an d of th e Co lem an  team’s fa i l ure  to c ou nter  it.

… But as matters sta n d n ow, the Minne sot a re c o un t i s  a leg al tra i n  wreck. The res ult, a nar ro w  F ranken lea d , i splainly  invali d. Ju s t as in  Bush v.Gore, the  r ecou n t  ha s involved  “unequa l evaluat i on of ba llots  in  sever al  re spect ” andf ail ed to  provi de  “mini mal p ro ceduralsafeguards” of equal tr eatmen t ofall  ballots.  Le g all y, it doe s no t matter w hic h c andid ate benef ited fr oma ll th esed ifference s  i n t r e at ment. (Mr.F r a nke n did .)T he dif fere nt treatment make s  the results n ot o n l y u nre l iabl e(and suspiciou s),  b u t  unconst it utional.

N orm Cole ma n  shou ld fig ht thi s all t h e  w a y to t he S upr eme Court  an di f he lo se st here,then  t he Rep ublica n s in t he Senate should  fili b u stert o s top A lFranken from  being sea ted and dem and ado-o ver e lection .
There  wi ll 
 up_with 177_more votes than were_recorded election_day._Decision? Count_them._Hennepin County (Minneapolis,_where I voted_— once, to my_knowledge) came up_with_133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines’_tally._All told,_the_recount_in 25 precincts ended up_producing more votes than voters_who signed_in that day.

Then there’s Minnesota’s (first, so far)_state_Supreme Court decision,_Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2_on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused_themselves because they_were_members_of the state canvassing_board.) While not as bad as_Florida’s interventions, the Minnesota Supreme Court_ordered local boards to count some previously_excluded absentee ballots but not others._Astonishingly, the court left the_decision as_to which votes to count_to the two_competing campaigns_and forbade local_election officials to correct errors on_their own.

If Messrs._Franken and Coleman agreed, an absentee_ballot_could be counted._Either_campaign_could veto_a vote. Dean_Barkley_of the_Independence_Party, who ran third, was not_included_in this process.

Thus, citizens’ right to vote_— the right to_vote!_— was made subject_to political parties’ gaming strategies._Insiders agree that Mr. Franken’s team_played a_far more_savvy game than Mr. Coleman’s. The margin of Mr. Franken’s current_lead is partly the product of_a successful what’s-mine-is-mine-what’s-yours-is-vetoed strategy,_and of_the_Coleman team’s failure_to_counter it.

…But_as matters stand now, the Minnesota recount_is a_legal train wreck. The result, a_narrow Franken lead, is_plainly_invalid. Just as in Bush v._Gore, the recount has involved “unequal_evaluation of ballots in several_respect”_and_failed to provide “minimal procedural_safeguards” of equal treatment of all_ballots. Legally, it_does not matter which candidate benefited from_all_these differences in treatment. (Mr. Franken_did.)_The different treatment makes the results_not_only_unreliable (and suspicious), but unconstitutional.

Norm_Coleman should fight this all the_way to the Supreme Court and if he loses_there, then the_Republicans in the Senate should_filibuster_to_stop Al Franken from being seated and demand a do-over_election.

There will