Another thing I found interesting in going through the Exhibits was that of the 22 precincts named as places where “double-counting” occured, 17 of them are in Minneapolis, 3 in St. Louis County (Duluth), and 1 in Dakota County (Saint Paul) – quite “Blue” areas. Also, you might remember how Trimble and Knack went on and on at the SCOMN hearing on the petition of “double counting” that Cindy Reichert had issued statements that such had definitely occurred in Mpls.; they had no “evidence”, but made the claim enough to make me wonder what she had told them. Well, it seems she told them nothing. Included in the exhibits here are a number of news accounts (AP, Pioneer Press, TwinCities.com, AP again, Star Tribune) of her original surmise, in an attempt to explain the missing 133, that there may have been double-counting of write-in ballots in precinct 3-1. This was not her conclusion, of course, as it was soon thereafter understood that an entire envelope was missing and totals from Election night were used in the Recount.

And NO LUNCH BREAKS during the recount recount!

My favorite part of this document is a paragraph that’s inserted strangely in the middle of the list of “numerous and material errors, mistakes and other irregularities” around which the Coleman camp is in Court. It reads:

“Contestant Norm Coleman received the largest number of votes legally cast for the office of United States Senator from the State of Minnesota, Contestant Norm Coleman is entitles to the Certificate of Election and Contestee Al Franken is not entitles to the Certificate of Election for the office of United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.”

Precious.

Because of 18 or so of these assertions of “irregularities”, the motion claims:

“…the number of votes validly cast for Contestant Norm Coleman during the General Election was materially greater than the number of Ballots certified for Contestant Norm Coleman by the Board, and a material number of Ballots were wrongfully and erroneously certified by the Board in favor of Contestee Al Franken. But for the existence of the above-described irregularities, mistakes and violations of law during the General Election and/or Recount, Contestant Norm Coleman would have been certified by the Board as having received the highest number of validly-cast votes for said office in the General Election and declared by the Board entitled to receive the Certificate of Election.”

So that’s their argument. If they had done the counting, Norm would have won. Their charge of “irregularities” goes far and wide: in the “conduct” of the General Election, in the “counting, tallying, recording, adding, returning and canvassing” of Ballots, in the recanvass after the Election, in the Recount – including in rules and procedures adopted by the Board, in the absentees already litigated over (“by way of example only”), the duplicates (“on information and belief” that they exist), in the addition of “found” ballots during the Recount, in the addition of “missing” ballots (Mpls.), in erroniously opened absentee ballots, in erroniously counted absentees, in challenged ballots that were “erroniously and inconsistently rejected” and “counted and tallied” by the Board, in “illegally cast and counted votes for Franken”, and then with the thing about the judges initials on ballots.

Both the Board and the local canvassing boards “failed to detect and correct obvious errors”, they say.

They are asking, in order to “properly prepare their case for trial”, to be allowed to inspect Ballots and Election Materials “without limitation”, and that the Court order a recount of specified precincts.

They ask for a stay issuance on the Certificate, a panel for hearing, appointment of ballot inspectors, a recount of “lawfully cast” ballots, an amendment of the certified vote totals, and to declare that Norm is the winner, and to pay his fees and give him any further “relief as permitted” by law.

More later…