Franken Sues for Records of Rejected Voters

Minn. senator could beat Franken with veto strategy

(NEWSER) - Norm Coleman rejected 37% of recount ballots in a blue Minnesota county this week, including that of an election judge, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports. Shirley Graham, who voted for Coleman, disputes a date discrepancy the senator used to deny her absentee vote. The state Supreme Court gave the candidates unilateral power to reject any ballot up for recount, a power the Republican camp has liberally exercised. More»

(NEWSER) - The Minnesota recount will not be complete until next year and could be continuing even as the new Senate is sworn in, Minnesota Public Radio reports. A plan agreed to by both the Coleman and Franken camps has the secretary of state counting wrongly rejected absentee ballots by January 4, after which both candidates can appeal to the Canvassing Board. The Senate is sworn in January 6. More»

Decision to re-examine rejected absentee ballots raises challenger's hopes

(NEWSER) - The momentum went Al Franken's way in the Minnesota recount yesterday, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports. The Democrat—trailing incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman by 303 votes with 93% of the ballots counted—picked up 37 more votes than his rival out of a pile of 171 uncounted ballots found in one county. Also yesterday, Minnesota's secretary of state ordered officials to re-examine 12,000 rejected absentee ballots, a move Franken supporters believe will help their guy. More»

Al Franken's request to block Coleman case rejected

(NEWSER) - A panel of Minnesota judges has rejected Al Franken's request to dismiss Norm Coleman's lawsuit challenging the recount in the state's Senate race, reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune. A trial that may last for weeks is set to start Monday to weigh Coleman's claims of widespread irregularities in the recount that gave his opponent a squeaker-thin 225-vote lead. More»

Arbitrary calls are reminiscent of Florida 2000: Paulsen

(NEWSER) - Minnesota's Senate recount "is Florida 2000 all over again," Michael Stokes Paulsen writes in the Wall Street Journal. "The details differ, but not in terms of arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards" and other bad precedents the decision in Bush v. Gore created. The situation "isn't just embarrassing," Paulsen argues. "It is unconstitutional." More»