Choice of successor is up to DFL Party

St Paul Pioneer (de)Press ^ | 10/26/02 | HANK SHAW

[deport]

I would thus speculate they are NOT AT ALL INTERESTED.

That's my guess also...

[Stultis]

Absentee ballots that have been mailed prior to the preparation of official supplemental ballots shall be counted in the same manner as if the vacancy had not occurred. Official supplemental ballots shall not be mailed to absent voters to whom ballots were mailed before the official supplemental ballots were prepared.

Here is where the big fight could be if the election is close:

Absentee ballots.

So, the Democrat party does have the right to substitute a candidate under these circustances, up to four days before the election. Supplemental ballots are created for the race with the substitution, but, per legislation, nothing is done about absentee ballots (which I assume for the moment have all been mailed). The absentees are counted "as if the vacancy had not occurred," which seems to mean that Coleman votes therein will count for a valid candidate, but that Wellstone votes will count for Wellstone, i.e. not for any candidate still in the race.

Prediction: If the election turns out to be close, the Dems will insist "it's only fair"^TM to ignore the law and count absentee Wellstone votes as votes for the substitute candidate. If it should turn out to be pivotal, there will be a huge stink about this.

"It's Only Fair" is a trademark of the Democratic National Committee and is NOT licensed for use by the Republican Party. Such use is expressly forbiden to it and all its agents, associates, candidates or supporters thereof.</FONT