Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
Capitol View®
Tom Scheck

Franken team reacts to Coleman suit

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

Here's the Franken campaign reaction to Coleman's latest petition to the Minnesota Supremes:

SAINT PAUL [12/19/08] - Communications director Andy Barr:

"This is just the latest desperate act by a campaign panicked because it has suddenly realized that it is going to lose the election. The two campaigns and the Secretary of State agreed on a deal at the insistence of the Coleman campaign. The Coleman campaign then used that deal to prevent us from making challenges in counties across the state. And now that they realize they are going to lose, they are once again running to court to try to change the rules and disenfranchise hundreds of voters based on a theory they invented and cannot support with any real evidence."

FLASHBACK: Email from Coleman attorney Tony Trimble (11/19):

"We believe that duplicate ballots should be counted if no corresponding original can be found, as this was a ballot cast on election night. A challenge to a duplicate ballot for which no original can be found is a frivolous challenge, because it does not relate to voter intent. Any challenge to a duplicate ballot should be made within an election contest and is not within the limited jurisdiction of an administrative recount. We will request the Minnesota State Canvassing Board to reject any challenges to duplicate ballots as groundless and frivolous (if the same are brought to the Canvassing Board)."

###