Professor Daniel Lowenstein is a member of the UCLA Law School faculty and an expert on election law. Professor Lowenstein has been following the Minnesota recount saga and comments on the order entered by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the recount proceeding today:
As I understand the court’s order, they have ordered the two campaigns and the county officials to examine the previously rejected absentee ballots. If all three agree that a ballot was mistakenly rejected, that ballot should be opened and counted. The court pointedly reminds the campaigns that they are must withhold agreement only when they are acting in good faith, or face the possibility of sanctions later. Where there is no such unanimous agreement, the absentee ballot must not be opened, thus preserving the possibility of judicial review in the event of a contest.
This strikes me as an eminently sensible decision.
The Court’s order by Justice Helen Meyer is available with Justice Page’s dissent and Justice Paul Anderson’s concurrence/dissent in PDF here. .
UPDATE: Nate Silver provides another take on the Supreme Court order in “In Minnesota, six inches of confusion.”
To comment on this post, go here.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.