Jan 04 2009
Al Franken, Roland Burris upset Senate procedures
The Minnesota Secretary of State announced late Sunday that they will probably certify Al Franken as the next senator elect from Minnesota sometime on Monday. However, there is some question whether or not the Republican governor of Minnesota will find the election certificate in time for Franken to take his place on Tuesday at the swearing-in ceremonies for the new Senate.
In addition, there is great debate over whether Franken should be allowed to take the seat while it is still contested. Former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman has already said he and his campaign staff that it is likely he will challenge the canvassing of the vote on Monday and the Minnesota senatorial election will end up in court.
From election night to tonight, the boatswain between the two candidates has been a matter of about 450 votes. On election night Coleman was certified the winner by 215 votes, a small enough margin that Minnesota’s automatic recount statute was in effect. Now after multiple challenges to voting, a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling regarding absentee ballots, and more recounting than we care to think about, Franken is apparently winning by about 225 votes. The Coleman campaign argues that another 650 absentee ballots, many of them from from Coleman heavy districts, remain to be counted.
So, using either the filibuster rules of the Senate, or a procedure similar to the one that is going to be used to challenge Roland Burris’ right to be sworn in as the next senator from Illinois, it is likely that Senate Republicans will challenge Franken’s right to be sworn in on Tuesday.
Personally, I view the chaos that is likely to ensue on Tuesday as evidence of the continuing problem with voting in the United States. The simple truth is that our voting procedures have been compromised. We can no longer guarantee that one man gets one vote and only one vote. In fact, it seems as though we are doing more to make sure that one man gets no votes than to promote voting in this country.
Since 2000, there has not been a single election on a national level that did not include some accusation of voter fraud or voter disenfranchisement. Neither is acceptable.
The optimist in me would like to believe that the continuing problems with voting are not part of some larger scheme, but I find it hard to believe that my country, which is capable of so many technological things, cannot figure out a simple way to make sure that the person voting is the person who should be voting and that every vote is counted in the way that the voter intended. I don’t like conspiracy theories, but it seems too rampant for it to be coincidental.
The simple truth is other countries are able to conduct voting. Some, like Australia, have mandatory voting requirements and they managed to have elections without the fiascoes that it faced American elections the last eight years. Perhaps we need to talk to our allies around the world and garner their suggestions for making the American democracy work the way the Republic was intended to work.
