[Prysson]

This is a tricky issue...On one hand absentee ballots favor republicans so you dont want to start over...

on the other hand you dont want to ASSUME that a vote for Wellstone was a vote for Mondale so shoudlt the democrats be required to recast...problem is how do you say that democrats have to recast but republicans dont...

The whole thing is a mess and I feel a real sympathy for anyone having to make decision on the "fairness" of this one.

On the other hand that is the "job description" of the secretary of state who in this case consulted with the DEMOCRAT attorny general and agreed on a course of action..as per usual though the democrats would rather take it to court then follow the rules..after all a court might just say they dont have to play by the rules ie New Jersey.

I swear why even have a secretary of state and go through the illusion that they have a job to perform when every time they make a decision the Rats sue.

[Hunble]

You summarized the difficult issues very well.

To be fair, all absentee ballots should be invalidated for the choice of Senator. But only for choices of Senator.

I fully understand why the Democraps are upset, since votes for Coleman are counted, but Wellstone votes are rejected.

However, rejecting valid votes does cause an equal protection problem.

I just thank God that I am not one of those Judges. Darn if I know of a solution!

[Otta B Sleepin]

At least the Dems haven't started criticizing Mary Kiffmeyer's make-up....yet.

[steveegg]

One could always follow the clear-meaning of the statute and tell the RATs that since their original guy died within 16 days, that Wellstone gets whatever votes were cast via the absentee ballot, Mondale gets whatever votes are cast at the polls, and if they don't win, to go pound sand.