Your intrepid observer has followed the MNS ECC on it's journey through the universes. Friday afternoon the Command Triumvirate issues an order defining a set of characteristics which will prevent a system within the universes from receiving final classification as a type F or type C system.
I have applied those characteristics to the 875 systems that have been explored for potential classification and determined that 37% of the Systems Coleman's astrologers had hoped for are excluded from classification while Franken's astronomers only have to deal with the loss of 5% of the systems identified by them.
I expect ~1700 ballots will eventually be counted and Coleman will need a 48/34/18 split to win. Franken was reported to have an 8% advantage in absentee ballots and the Supreme Court ordered rejected absentee ballot opening went 52/33/16 for Franken.
I have a theory where Coleman can get an advantage, but you won't see it in print.
I have been tracking the ballots presented as evidence during the Election Court Challenge. Friday's Court Order identifying ten characteristics which will cause an absentee ballot envelope to rejected severely limited Coleman's case.
The main effect of this decision is that it demolished Coleman's case that equal protection required equal treatment of all absentee ballot envelopes. Coleman's team claimed that the opening of any ballot envelope anywhere in the State which had a particular characteristic made that envelope a legal vote and all envelopes which had a similar error were valid votes and the envelope should be opened and the vote counted.
The court order demands that all ballots comply with a strict interpretation of all election laws within the election code.
The Court shall not order the opening and counting of ballots that fall into the following categories because such ballots are not legally cast under relevant law:
- An absentee ballot submitted by a voter in an absentee ballot return envelope on which the voter's address is not the same as on the absentee ballot application.
- An absentee ballot submitted by a voter in an absentee ballot return envelope in which the witness certification on the absentee ballot return envelope is signed by a person identified as a notary public but no notarial seal or stamp is affixed to the absentee ballot return envelope.
- An absentee ballot submitted by a non-registered voter.
- An absentee ballot submitted by a voter in an absentee ballot return envelope in which the voter failed to sign the absentee ballot return envelope.
- An absentee ballot submitted by a voter whose absentee ballot application does not contain the voter's signature.
- An absentee ballot submitted by a voter whose absentee ballot application was signed by another unless the absentee ballot application was signed by another individual in accordance with the Minnesota Statute concerning those unable to sign.
- A UOCAVA ballot received by election officials after the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots. (3:00 PM on election day)
- An absentee ballot dropped off in-person by the voter on Election Day.
- An absentee ballot dropped off by a proper agent on Election Day but after the statutory deadline for delivery. (3:00 PM on election day)
- A ballot submitted by a voter who was not registered to vote within the precinct in which he or she resides.
| Coleman | Reviewed | Listed* | Franken | Reviewed | Listed* | 875** | 5097** | 11,000** |
1 | 4974 | 11 | 66 | 648 | 2 | 16 | 13 | 78 | 163 |
2 | listed | 1 | 6 | listed | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 13 |
3 | | 171 | 997 | | 6 | 37 | 172 | 1002 | 2170 |
4 | | 31 | 170 | | 1 | 6 | 33 | 192 | 415 |
5 | | 72 | 394 | | 4 | 12 | 74 | 420 | 930 |
8 | | 5 | 27 | | 0 | 0 | 5 | 29 | 63 |
9 | | 11 | 60 | | 17 | 104 | 17 | 99 | 214 |
10 | | 12 | 66 | | 2 | 12 | 14 | 81 | 176 |
| Totals | 314 | 1786 | | 32 | 187 | 329 | 1907 | 4144 |
* Estimates based on direct ratio extrapolation using numbers from the
875 ballots envelopes reviewed in court from the combined list of 5097 from the total universe of approximately 11,000.
** Totals do not correspond due to ballots listed by both campaigns.
No category 7 UOCAVA ballots have been identified.
4 category 6 ballots also qualified under category 5.
Of the 533 remaining ballots Franken's lawyers presented evidence that could result in the counting of 55 of 57 adjusted for the new categories. Coleman's lawyers presented persuasive evidence on only 74 of the 475 remaining ballots.
My classification system has identified 6 categories which account for 488 of the remaining ballots.
Rejection | Coleman | Good | Franken | Good | 875 | Good | 5097 | Good | 11,000 | Good |
Signature mismatch | 181 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 188 | 15 | 791 | 76 | 1725 | 163 |
No registration | 98 | 22 | 18 | 18 | 116 | 40 | 676 | 223 | 1458 | 603 |
No reason given | 51 | 3 | 13 | 13 | 67 | 16 | 390 | 93 | 842 | 481 |
No proof | 53 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 59 | 11 | 343 | 64 | 741 | 138 |
No application | 21 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 35 | 21 | 204 | 122 | 440 | 264 |
No witness address | 22 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 23 | 2 | 134 | 12 | 289 | 25 |
Totals | 426 | 52 | 47 | 46 | 488 | 105 | 2538 | 560 | 5495 | 1674 |
Signature mismatch projections excluded Plymouth since Coleman's lawyers told the court the numbers were statistical outliers. The signature issue will become a major focus since Coleman will try and find a way to bring in individuals why will attest they signed or witnessed the signing of applications and envelopes. I expect court will rule that signature mismatching cannot be overturned on review without evidence from the voter or witness.
No registration projection includes a potential 50% discovery rate based on the testimony (13 minute mark) of Plymouth City Clerk Sandra Engdhal that they opened the secrecy envelopes and found Registration cards in 50% of the envelopes. The open question is will the court order the opening of secrecy envelopes without evidence the particular envelope has a registration enclosed.
Of the 28 analyzed "no reason" ballots 16 were accepted and the projection was based on those results.
"No proof" applies to non registered and challenged voters who are required prove proof of address and identity. Most of these are referred to as no ID or no number. For absentee voters either a number has to be provided or a voucher has to sign the envelope using the same rules as a witness.
|
Step 3. Show your witness your proof of residence in the precinct. The witness should mark the proof shown on the ballot return envelope. Any of the following may be used as proof of residence:
a. a valid Minnesota driver’s license, permit or identification card; a receipt for any of these forms that contains your current address; or a tribal identification card issued by the tribal government of a tribe recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that contains your name, address, signature and picture;
b. the signature of a registered voter (voucher) who lives in your precinct; if your witness is registered to vote in your precinct, your witness may also vouch for you;
c. if you live in certain residential facilities, the signature of an employee of the facility;
d. a notice of late registration sent to you by the county auditor or city clerk;
e. a current valid registration in the same precinct;
f. one document from the list in (i) and one photo ID from the list in (ii):
(i) A. an original bill for telephone, television, or Internet provider services, regardless of how those telephone, television or Internet provider services are delivered, or an original bill for gas, electric, solid waste, water, or sewer services, that:
- shows the voter’s name and current address in the precinct; and
- has a due date within 30 days before or after the election day.
A rent statement from a landlord that itemizes utility expenses and meets the requirements of this paragraph is an original utility bill for purposes of providing proof of residence; or
B. a current student fee statement that contains the student’s valid address in the precinct; and
(ii) a Minnesota driver’s license or identification card, a United States passport, a United States military identification card, a student identification card issued by a Minnesota postsecondary educational institution, or a tribal identification card issued by the tribal government of a tribe recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior, that contains the individual’s signature.
The court will continue holding envelopes to a strict interpretation of these rules and a ballot will be required to have a number unless the number is provided. Where receipt is mentioned, that is the receipt for an ID card.
Witness address will be required.
Step 6. Print your name and address on the back of the ballot return envelope unless a label with your name and address has already been affixed. Sign your name. The name, address, and signature of your witness are required as well.