Source: https://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2009/07/franken-pdf-.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:49:57+00:00

Document:
Frederic W. Knaak, Knaak & Kantrud, P.A., Vadnais Heights, Minnesota, for appellants.
violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
error of law or abused its discretion, we affirm.
recount, as required by Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 1(b)(1) (2008).
day and agreed that some of them had been improperly rejected. See Coleman v.
filed a notice of election contest in Ramsey County District Court under Minn.
Coleman dismissed with prejudice all claims relating to these ballots.
his counterclaim. Franken did not appeal from the trial court‟s judgment.
concluded that Franken was entitled to receive the certificate of election.
462, 465 (Minn. 1981); Bank v. Egan, 240 Minn. 192, 194, 60 N.W.2d 257, 259 (1953).
fraud on the part of either voters or election officials.
See Minn. Stat. § 203B.12, subd. 2 (2008).
But we review a trial court‟s conclusions of law de novo. See Carlson v. Allstate Ins.
Minneapolis precinct in which some ballots were lost before the manual recount.
762 N.W.2d 558, 567 (Minn. 2009).
to substantive due process6 was violated is a question of law, which we review de novo.
State v. Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202, 207 (Minn. 2009).
requirements for voting by absentee ballot.7 See Minn. Stat. § 203B.12, subd. 2 (2008).
in a violation of substantive due process.
to ensure that wrongs addressed are truly of a constitutional magnitude. See Collins v.
election contest and, therefore, that claim is not properly before us. See Minn.
non-registered voter was not legally cast.
A general pattern emerges from all of these cases taken together.
disenfranchisement that results from a change in the election procedures.
violated when signature requirements were enforced for the first time).
Roe, 43 F.3d at 80-81.
and in our precedent, requires strict adherence.
envelope), and a copy of the directions for casting an absentee ballot. Minn.
application. Minn. Stat. § 203B.06, subd. 4 (2008).
precinct roster to be sure the voter has not voted in person or by another absentee ballot.
from their secrecy envelopes, and then deposit the ballots in the ballot box. Id., subd. 4.
compliance with the statutory mandates. We disagree.
precedent to the right of voting.
(Citing Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 150, 62 N.W. 116, 118 (1895); Truelsen v.
67, 119 N.W.2d at 6-8.
election a condition precedent to absentee voting. 200 Minn. at 66-68, 273 N.W. at 640.
statutory provisions. Id. at 65-66, 273 N.W. at 639-40.
of the election officers.” Id. at 524, 120 N.W.2d at 345.
privilege, not a right, and affirmed the mandatory nature of absentee voting requirements.
compliance therewith.” Id. at 354, 227 N.W.2d at 803.
on either past practice or official assurances that strict compliance was not required.
policy determination for the legislature, not this court, to make.
February 13 order violated substantive due process.
protection was violated in this case.12 Coleman‟s equal protection argument is two-fold.
ballots, in contrast to the practices of local jurisdictions during the election.
present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination.
intentional or purposeful discrimination between persons or classes.” Id. at 7.
individual or class doomed his claim.
constitute a denial of equal protection.” Id.
the requirements for absentee voting was the product of intentional discrimination.
cast, was the product of an intent to discriminate against any individual or class.
evidence of any systematic discrimination.
of a statute. See Programmed Land, Inc. v. O’Connor, 633 N.W.2d 517, 530 (Minn.
utilized in the tax context does not apply.
election that had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated equal protection.
though they were not proven to be of constitutional magnitude.
Minn. Stat. § 203B.12, subd. 2, makes no classification among voters.
demonstrated that these findings are clearly erroneous.
election officials or the trial court violated his right to equal protection.
jurisdictions in their application of the statutory standards governing absentee ballots.
problems were present in this election.
We review the trial court‟s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See Peterson v.
BASF Corp., 711 N.W.2d 470, 482-83 (Minn. 2006).
the parties‟ vote totals for any ballots that did not meet that standard.
once the ballot has been deposited in the ballot box.
ballot envelopes to be made, if at all, before the ballots are deposited in the ballot box.
prepared shall be placed unopened among the spoiled ballots.
differing only in the positioning of some of its clauses.
stipulation dismissing with prejudice all claims with respect to those ballots.
a single absentee ballot that we described as “clearly invalid.” 303 Minn.
ballot came too late.” Id. at 356, 227 N.W.2d at 805.
boards to accept or reject absentee ballot envelopes in the 30 days before the election.
challenge certain aspects of those absentee ballots at the polling place on election day.
election judges before they are opened.
conclude that in excluding this evidence, the court did not abuse its discretion.
themselves and do not include voter rolls or other election materials sought by Coleman.
N.W.2d 916, 921 (Minn. 1990).
election contest. 264 Minn. at 400, 119 N.W.2d at 39.
the identified precincts in which he alleges double-counting of absentee ballots occurred.
recount, resulting in extra votes tallied in some precincts.
abuse its discretion in denying the petition for inspection.
only 1,896 votes in the recount, accepted the election day returns for that precinct.
N.W.2d 41, 45 (Minn. 2008).
an accurate count of the ballots.” Id. at 141, 142 N.W. at 13.
Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn.
consideration or decision of this matter.

References: § 204
 v.

 v. 
 § 203
 v. 
 v. 
 § 203
 v.

 § 203
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 203
 v.