In Minnesota, Six Inches of Confusion (Minn. Supreme Court decision)

[depakid]

Source: Five Thirty Eight

A just-issued ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court sets the stage for a scene similar to the one at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport right now: confusion, delays, heated tempers, and the possibility for everybody on the manifest to find themselves trapped. The 3-2 ruling, issued at approximately 5:30 PM this evening, orders the following:

1. The counties are prohibited from sorting through or counting any rejected absentee ballots on their own, or under the recommendations of the state's Canvassing Board;

2. Instead, the two candidates, the Secretary of State, and the county auditors and canvassing boards should implement a process for identifying and counting wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. But -- and here's the kicker -- both of the candidates and the local elections officials must mutually agree that any given absentee ballot has been rejected in error. If such a consensus emerges about a particular ballot, it will be opened, counted, and the revised results will be forwarded to the state's Canvassing Board.

The Court further requires that this process be completed by 4 PM on December 31st. Nothing in the ruling, however, would appear to preclude either campaign from challenging the results of the election at a later date.

Read more: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/in-minnesota-six-inches-of-confusion.html

[Robbien]

1. Wait a minute, then Coleman wins. He has been saying all along nothing was rejected in error

So all he has to do is keep saying it and the ballots aren't counted. Right?

[w4rma]

2. Franken doesn't need the absentee ballots to win. All Franken needs is the challenged ballots. (nt)

[depakid]

3. Let's hope so

What it looks like though is that the process is going to be drug out for at least another couple of weeks.

[Thor_MN]

4. Not necessarily. After today's counting, Coleman's lead is two votes.

At least that's what I heard on the radio. No way of knowing what the distribution of remaining Coleman challenged ballots is, but it narrowed from several hundred to two votes today.

[Festivito]

5. It does seem to deny due process. Might prove interesting. /nt

[Nevernose]

6. I thought Bush v. Gore set no precedent?

The problem, it seems to me, is that if the candidates apply inconsistent standards from county to county and precinct to precinct, they set up an exceptionally strong Equal Protection argument for their opponent. In Bush v Gore -- a ruling cited extensively in the Coleman campaign's petition to Minnesota's court this week, the U.S. Supreme Court held as follows:

There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions. Respondents say that the very purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.

IIRC, Bush v. Gore is the only SCOTUS decision that the SCOTUS said could not be a precedent. WestLaw even made up a special designation for it and (hypothetical) cases like it.