The recount continues as election officials in Minnesota sort through ballots for the contested Senate race between Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken. Reps from each camp are challenging ballots to stay in the game.
by Laura Olson
As the Senate race recount continues in Minnesota, ballot challenges are creating more mud than clarity.
About 60 percent of the state's 2.9 million ballots still must be reviewed, according to Associated Press reports this morning. During that process, campaign representatives for Sen. Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken have been flagging ballots with the slightest smudge or improper marking in hopes of cutting down their opponent's vote total.
The two candidates were separated by a mere 215 votes - 1,211,375 for Franken compared to Coleman's 1,211,590 - prior to the recount. Both have lost voters during the recount process, which could become so tight that a winner would not be declared until the state's canvassing board meets beginning Dec. 16 to rule on the challenges.
To clarify the arduous process, Minnesota Public Radio has posted a page with photos of several challenged ballots look like. After reading an explanation on the state law regarding identifying marks and voter intent, readers can cast their own vote - on whether they think the ballot should be disqualified.
Sample ballots, from the MPR page, after the jump...
Three examples of challenged ballots:
(The Coleman camp argues that an arrow is pointing from the filled-in bubble to Coleman's name.)
And this gem:
What do you think -- should these ballots be counted? And for which candidate?
• 
Comments
I gotta go with 2 for Franken, one for Coleman
Posted by: Walker | November 21, 2008 3:48 PM
Those 3 ballots are for Franken.
Posted by: The Rodentman | November 21, 2008 3:52 PM
All three are obviously for Franken.
Posted by: Aerin | November 21, 2008 3:57 PM
Walker, which of those three would you actually count for Coleman? The one with the "arrow" as Coleman claims? That one made no attempt to fill in the Coleman bubble at all, and looks far more like an errant pen mark.
Posted by: David | November 21, 2008 3:58 PM
They should all count for Franken.
Posted by: Win | November 21, 2008 3:59 PM
3rd one is not counted. Disqualified. Easiest one!
Posted by: Raunnie | November 21, 2008 4:01 PM
First one no brainer is for Franken, the second is dubious but probably for Franken and the last one I think it is clear the voters intent was for Lizard People ( provided they are 35 years of age, a citizen, and a resident)
Posted by: Amerikanista | November 21, 2008 4:01 PM
WRONG AGAIN
1 FOR COLEMAN
1 FOR FRANKEN
1 FOR LIZARD PEOPLE
Posted by: OSMER | November 21, 2008 4:01 PM
#1 is a throiw-out.
#2 and #3 are Franken.
Posted by: Tiger | November 21, 2008 4:03 PM
All three should be voided becasue of bad penmanship
Posted by: Clif | November 21, 2008 4:03 PM
2 for Franken, 1 for Franken from somebody with a great sense of humour.
Posted by: Rick Cain | November 21, 2008 4:04 PM
One for lizard people should be thrown out.
So should the one with two marks How do I know who put the no there?
Posted by: Susan R | November 21, 2008 4:07 PM
They're all spoiled. Coleman's side has every right to challenge the first, the arrow is not at all convincing on the second (especially given the stray mark below) but Franken's side should not prevail there either. And the "Lizard people" guy (hope I'm not being sexist) probably did want to vote for Franken but wasted his vote by being stupid. The law most likely allows #3 to go to Franken anyway...
Posted by: Chuck H2D | November 21, 2008 4:08 PM
Two for Franken and one for Lizard People .
Posted by: Temp | November 21, 2008 4:09 PM
Why didn't these folks get erasers for their pencils?
Posted by: Don Gilbert | November 21, 2008 4:10 PM
#1 is definitely Franken. Voter intent is obvious and that's what counts in MN.
#2 probably Franken. Picture is blurry, but I don't quite see that as an arrow. Maybe
#3 definitely Franken. Though the voter wrote in Lizard People in two races, only in one did he actually fill in the oval, and in the senate race he clearly filled in the Franken oval. It would be interesting to see if there are other Lizard People written in in other races.
Posted by: ch | November 21, 2008 4:12 PM
All three for Franken, it is so obvious that it never should have been an issue.
This is the third time I tried to post, your comment system is horribly broken.
"Preview" does not work, it throws an error even if you type in the correct "letter" in the anti-spam field.
Posted by: Michael Hess | November 21, 2008 4:13 PM
#1 & 2 are clearly Franken,
Thought about # 3 for a while then noticed the bubble that's filled in for the lizard people is NOT in the US Senate section.
The official US Senate section has Franken's bubble filled in and no one elses, so score that for Franken as well.
Posted by: kevin | November 21, 2008 4:25 PM
I would have to go with three for Franken, But I would be interested in knowing if all three were originally thrown out or if not how were they tallied (ie. before recount before challenge)
Posted by: Duane | November 21, 2008 4:26 PM
Two for Franken and I think that Lizard People is code for Bush/Cheney.
Posted by: Karl | November 21, 2008 4:29 PM
Why didn't these folks get erasers for their pencils?
If they use the optical scanners like Lake County IL you have to use a black marker so it can't be erased and open to fraud or vote changing.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | November 21, 2008 4:50 PM
Its obvious to me that in the first and second ballot, the voters intended to vote Republican but then came to their senses and voted Democratic. This arrow theory is bull. The person placed their pen on Colemans bubble but then read underneath, that he was the Republican candidate, and they then proceeded to fill in Frankens bubble.
As for the Lizard people, well, Frankens bubble is filed in so I guess its his.
Anyway this is all so archaic! We live in the United States of America why isn't this all computerized already!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 21, 2008 8:12 PM
1) Throw it out. Anyone could have written no on the ballot after the fact. The voter clearly should have gotten a new ballot.
2) Franken. The arrow means nothing because the oval for Coleman is not filled in. Also, anyone could have drawn the arrow, if it is an arrow.
3) Franken. Again, the oval for LP is not filled in.
Posted by: Bruce Y | November 21, 2008 9:16 PM
Do we want people like this voting? Kind of scary. All three are subject to interpretation, therefore NONE should be counted as valid.
Posted by: Karl | November 21, 2008 9:44 PM
All three should be thrown out - if someone can't have their mind up between these two people before they go and vote, they are obviously too stupid to vote.
Posted by: Terry | November 21, 2008 10:45 PM
Why not have the republican Supreme Court just step in and call it for Coleman before an official recount ends?
Seems the logical thing to do.
Posted by: Bubba | November 21, 2008 11:01 PM
Throw them all out. If the machine cannot read it, it should be discarded. If we decide elections based on the "intent" of an irresponsible voter, why have an election? Let's just decide by the pre-election polls! After what we saw in Florida, it baffles me that folks still have a hard time "CLEARLY" filling out their ballot for the sole reason of wanting their vote to count! If one does happen to make a mistake and then proceeds to fill in numerous bubbles in one column, put X's and O's, along with chicken scratches and Lizard People etc all over their ballot, how can they actually submit that vote and feel confident the system will count it correctly?....I couldn't! "Get a new ballot and do it right!" Just like if you were to make several mistakes on your IRS 1040 form. You wouldn't cross things out, draw lines and circles and write whatever comments on whatever part of the form here and there, and just assume that the IRS will straighten it out.
Posted by: James | November 22, 2008 2:11 AM
Do we want people like this voting? Kind of scary. All three are subject to interpretation, therefore NONE should be counted as valid.
Posted by: Karl
-
This comment bothers me. Karl wants to deny three citizens their vote without any specific reason. Scary!
Posted by: Bruce Y | November 22, 2008 3:33 AM