[dwilli]

There is no way on earth a vote for Paul Wellstone can be credited to Walter Mondale. The votes can be deemed null and void and that could be a constitutional infringement but in that case the voters would be required to vote again. That would break the law on when a senatorial vote has to be held.

[Congressman Billybob]

The case would be pitched out on its ear in a New York minute. The first reason is the obvious one -- even if the "Wellstone" votes were counted as Mondale votes, Mondale still loses. The second reason is the Minnesota Supreme Court, like the one in Hawaii, has already laid down a marker that it will obey Minnesota law, rather than rewrite it.

Following the MN law, the SC ruled last Friday that all "Wellstone" absentee voters had two choices to "correct" their ballots. They could request a new absentee ballot, or they could vote in person which would vitiate any absentee ballots they had previously cast.

Therefore, no one was "disenfrancised." Any voter who ignored both options and allowed a "Wellstone" vote to stand, simply decided under MN law not to cast a ballot between Coleman and Mondale. So, if the court ever addressed the merits, rather than simply ruling on the numbers as being too few to make a difference, Mondale still loses.

God only knows what the New Jersey Supreme Court would do with this case, But it is in Minnesota, where the judges have already demonstrated their obedience to the law and to their oaths of office.

The question raised in this thread is less then a tempest in a teapot. It is a non-existent tempest in a non-existent teapot.

Congressman Billybob

On American Politics

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think that's what the Minnesota Supreme Court was saying when it ruled absentee Wellstone voters could get another ballot. Minnesotans who left their Wellstone vote as is apparently didn't want to vote for Fritz.