Minnesota 5th Piler lackeys
SOS=Minnesota Secretary of State, in charge of elections.
Why did Gelbman not cite the statute explicitly in his Dec 1 email to the
counties?
Was Gelbman on Dec 1
http://www.minnpost.com/infodoc/2008/12/02/4953/jim_gelbmanns_letter_on_rejected_absentee_counts
and Swansown on Dec12 talking about rejected absentee ballot applications or
absentee ballots? Obviously the ballots themselves. Then why do they cite the 4
reasons in 203B.12 for rejecting an ab application?
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=203B.12
There are more than 4 valid state-related reasons to reject ballot applications
and ballots.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?topic=100307
Those reasons include all the reasons a regular ballot might be spoiled.
The 5th Pile request was and is a Democrat ploy. Counties were instructed to
"randomly" place ballots in any of the 5 piles and to place disputed ballots in
the 5th pile. Because a ab ballot, rejected lawfully by Minnesota county
officials, is "disputed" in the Ritchie-directed county re-eval of lawfully
evaluated rejected ballots, that ballot is now part of the Ritchie-directed
"amended" returns to be counted just like lawful votes, according to the
Democrat attorney general, Lori Swanson? What is this?
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=203B.08#stat.203B.08
An eligible voter who receives absentee ballots as provided in this chapter
shall mark them in the manner specified in the directions for casting the
absentee ballots
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=211
If county auditors arent verifying the "Reason" checkbox for example, and
allowed an unchecked application through, they would not be complying with the
SOS's own rules.
So Coleman will gain the 46 votes only if they go to court, where precedence
clearly is in their favor.
So the Coleman camp is forced to go to court by the SOS canvassing board.
If the law itself has not changed since since Nov 4 (
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?topic=100307 ) then why should we
expect a different result in re-evaluating rejected absentee ballots?
If the SOS needs to challenge a county as to the EVALUATION of an absentee
ballot they must do so BEFORE the recount of rejected absentee ballots. If we
get different results, and the same Nov 4 standards were applied, what is to
prevent a legal challenge, since no legal premise exists as to why the results
would be different the second time around.
You are telling 87 counties to re-evaluate absentee ballots using the same
statutes applied Nov 4. The only difference is you are sending partisan signals
on cherry picked topics through the Gearin, Cleary, Ritchie Gelbman and Swanson
statements.
If you want to legally recognize the Nov 4 election work as invalid for the
reason some ballots were rejected for a missing date, that should be
established before the absentee ballots are recounted. Why didn't Lori Swanson
say "an absentee ballot is valid even without a date"? Probably because in her
legal opinion, she knows it's not true.
The people who say the election officials incorrectly performed their jobs on
November 4 need to challenge each such election official in court, for the
premise, on which the rejected absentee ballots are allowed, to be valid. And
they need to do it BEFORE the absentee ballots are recounted. Otherwise the
recount of absentee ballots should NOT include questioning the EVALUATION of
the ballots. It is a re-COUNT not a re-EVALUATION.
You'd think Lori Swanson, the MN Attorney General, would get that before she
ade her statements. But then again she ignored a 2002 Mower county precedent in
her statement on the 133 ballots.
Ann Coulter was right. Norm Coleman's election victory is being STOLEN,
ILLEGALLY.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29768
"As in Minnesota this year, the Republican candidate kept winning and winning,
but the Democrats refused to concede, instead demanding endless recounts.
Meanwhile, Democratic precincts kept "discovering" new ballots for the
Democrat, Chris Gregoire.
Six days after the election on Nov. 10, 2004, Republican Dino Rossi was ahead
by 3,492 votes. But five days later, heavily Democratic King County election
officials actually claimed to "find" 10,000 uncounted ballots! And they favored
Gregoire!
Nonetheless, after a full recount, Rossi was still ahead, but this time by only
42 votes.
So the Democrats demanded a third recount -- and King County continued its
miraculous ballot-"finding" trick, which continued to favor Gregoire.It's hard
to avoid the conclusion that Democrat election officials were "finding" new
votes as much as they needed to find new votes. Here are 10,000 new votes. You
need more? OK, back to work!
Eventually, King County found enough provisional and absentee ballots to put
Democrat Gregoire in the lead -- and this result was immediately certified by
the weenie Republican secretary of state."
Jamie Delton
Summit U