Dear Fritz Knaak:
You said voters should reject any attempt by the Franken campaign to use the courts to determine the outcome of the Minnesota Senatorial election. I assume this meant you have no plans to file any lawsuits if a recount should find Al Franken won.
In each of these cases, we see an unprecedented and alarming trend that could undermine public confidence in the recount – and replace it with armies of lawyers – deployed across the countryside – using the courts, instead of the ballot box, to determine the outcome of a recount.
But then in the next breath, you say certain ballots once rejected should not be looked at again:
Minnesotans should not just be concerned about this potential – they should be almost fearful of the Franken Campaign’s unprecedented efforts to get across to their private data to influence this recount – and equally fearful of the Franken Campaign’s efforts to force rejected and spoiled ballots into a recount for the first time ever in the 150 year history of our state.
By this reasoning, no ballot once counted should be looked at again, either.
But if the ballot was properly rejected once, why wouldn't it be rejected again under even closer scrutiny? Why worry?
I would hope that the Franken campaign would cease and desist of what I view as harassment and intimidation of voters, and to cease and desist in its efforts to seek state-sanctioned harassment of voters and depriving them of their privacy rights.
I see you've been taking your Palin pills.
Now that you've petrified all the voters about Al Franken's lawyers looking in their underwear drawers, maybe you should explain that they still can't look at the votes. But other voter information is public in Minnesota, provided you pay the $46 fee. In some states, you can even go online and find it for free.
See, it's not so scary, after all.
And one more thing. I know Norm Coleman is trying to come across as a cross-the-aisle kind of guy, but when searching for examples of electoral infamy to brand Franken with, you might try something other than the Republican harassment of voters and stopping of the recount in Florida, 2000.
It's not going to help your case. And if you don't want to "undermine public confidence in the recount," maybe you should just chill.