News Cut: November 21, 2008 Archive

The Bachmen vs. Lizard People

Posted at 10:06 AM on November 21, 2008 by Than Tibbetts (29 Comments)
Filed under: Media, News, Politics

Take a moment and look at these two ballots.

Let's compare. Does everyone have their copy of 204C.22 ready?

Our first stop will be Subdivision 1: Ballot valid if intent determinable.

In both cases, the only marks in the ovals are next to a bona fide candidate. I will vouch for the voter's intent with the "X" mark, he/she used it consistently across the full ballot (see Subdivision 10, Different marks).

(We're going to operate under the assumption that it doesn't matter what was in the write-in field, despite what David Icke might say.)

The problem facing the state's Canvassing Board might be reconciling Subdivision 4:

Name written in proper place.

If a voter has written the name of an individual in the proper place on a general or special election ballot a vote shall be counted for that individual whether or not the voter makes a mark (X) in the square opposite the blank.

I've polled a few people around the office and consensus seems to be that this is an overvote, meaning the ballot should be discarded.

Aside: I suppose the Franken camp could mount a challenge by saying that "Lizard People" is not the name of an individual, though I doubt "voter intends to be funny" is one of the criteria the Canvassing Board will assess. Comedy Central's Indecision 2008 crew, by the way, wonders alike.

Several questions arise: Should the county have accepted the Franken vote? Does the voter consider Al Franken equivalent to the Lizard People? Is Lizard People a collective, or just one person like Cat Power? (Hat tip to the Minnesota Independent, which points out who put Lizard People on the map.)

What this also means — assuming the above holds true &mdash is that a lot of the people who played election judge have an unfounded preference for the Franken ballot, legally speaking.

So, there you have it. A pretty straightforward look at some challenged ballots through the prism of the law. Not so hard, was it?

D'oh!

Comment on this post

The Lizard People ballot solved

Posted at 5:43 PM on November 21, 2008 by Than Tibbetts (21 Comments)

I found this document from the Secretary of State's office that, I believe, is meant to be a guide for election officials. The language is a little more plain than the state's voter intent statute.

Here's the key sentence that solves our Lizard People ballot question:

Count all printed names with a mark made opposite them and all names written-in, not exceeding the number to be elected for that office.

Since you can only elect one person to the the U.S. Senate seat, the Lizard People ballot is an overvote. It doesn't count, and neither does the "Bachmen" ballot.

The document includes a "Notes and Decisions" section that you might find relevant, if you've been following along with our discussions and the ballot judging game. The names in parentheses refer to the names we gave the ballots on the challenged ballots game.

Appearance of marks which trial court may reasonably consider to be tentative or accidental should not destroy ballot. (See: The Arrow, The Thumbprint, The Oops, The Dot, The Confusion)

If the voter used an identifying mark or mark with the intent to identify the ballot, the
entire ballot is defective. (See: The Signature)

Ballot containing oval mark in upper left hand corner, obviously made by voter in testing writing quality of pen before marking ballot, was properly counted despite claim that oval was an identifying mark. (See:The Autograph, maybe)

Ballots which had crossmarks both in pencil and in ink on same ballot were properly counted. (See: The Pencil)

Ballot which contained word "no" and an obliteration before name of one candidate was properly accepted for counting. (See: The NO ballot)

Comment on this post