I wrote an article last Thursday in which I attempted to quantify the Election Contest Court's Tuesday request for 400 currently rejected absentee ballots. While my previous analysis was not technically incorrect, it was however a misrepresentation of the current state of affairs; I entirely neglected to account for the Nauen group of petitioners.

I'll first present the corrected extrapolation:

Extrapolations: ECC Requests by City [Nauen] [PDF, 128KB]

                      Identified       Extrapolation
                        Voters      Coleman      Franken
ECC Request               358        150.24       149.86
    Coleman Regions       219        106.02        76.30
    Franken Regions       139         44.24        73.56

Nauen Petitioners          42          2.10        37.80
    Only Orig. 64           6           .30         5.40
    Ordered Counted        36          1.80        32.40

Total                     400        152.35       187.66

You'll notice that the new version greatly increases Franken's projected gain; up to about 35 from around 1.5 previously. This vast increase can be directly attributed to the assumption that any voter listed within the Nauen group is inherently more likely to vote for Franken as the Franken campaign is providing the financial support; Mr. Nauen also appears to be a Democrat based upon his contributions. The extrapolation uses a 90-5-5 split, in favor of Franken.

Coleman needs to make up 225 votes, and the numbers simply do not add up; either in the extrapolation above or the trinomial distribution below:

The very small number above, is the probability of Norm Coleman overcoming the Canvassing Board Certified 225 vote deficit within the 400 ballots requested by the ECC; the calculation uses the statewide result as certified by the MN State Canvassing Board on January 5th.

The numbers of the current situation are hopefully well understood but let's take a look at the sequence of events relating to the Nauen Petitioners to better understand the current circumstances. The pertinent excerpts of the original Nauen petition, as presented on January 13th, is quoted below; this filling listed each of the 64 voters by name and county within Exhibit A:

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray for an Order of the Court as follows:

1. Directing that Petitioners' absentee ballots shall be opened and counted, and the total be declared and certified, for such use as might be deemed appropriate by the United States Senate or the judges responsible for the election contest pending in the District Court for the County of Ramsey, No. 62-CV-09-56 or any other proper use under law, pursuant to procedures established by this Court.

2. Granting Petitioner's such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

Dated: January 13, 2008

...

Exhibit A

[List of 64 Voters by Name and County, CSV]

Source: Petition by Certain MN Voters to have their Votes Counted Pursuant to Mn.Stat.204B.44 via MNCourts.gov

Within the first filling, the 64 petitioners basically asked to have their votes counted. The ECC would eventually grant 23 of these individuals their request; a 24th also met the court's criteria barring the presence of a completed voter registration application. The February 10th order pertaining to these 23 (or 24) is presented below along with the digitized table containing their names and associated county:

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioners Dennis Peterson, et. al.'s (''Petitioners'') motion for summary judgment. After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the written submission of the parties, and the pleadings in the case. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

2. The following absentee ballots shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to be opened and counted at a date to be determined by the Court, and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under law.

[List of 24 Voters by Name and County, CSV]

3. The absentee ballot of Roxanna Saad of Dakota County shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to open the secrecy envelope to determine whether it contains a complete voter registration application. In the event that a complete voter registration application is found within the secrecy envelope, Ms. Saad's absentee ballot shall be opened and counted in accordance with section 2 of this Order.

4. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein

5. Any requested relief not specifically granted herein is DENIED.

Dated: February 10 2009

Source: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov

I wrote a previous article addressing the above order that may provide additional insight.

The Coleman campaign then moved to vacate the previous order by specifically addressing eight of the just mentioned voters. The ECC met Coleman about half way and vacated three of the previously granted 24 petitioners. This order was released on March 2nd, but was never posted to the Litigation Website, but The Ohio State University pulled through:

This matter comes before the Court on "Contestants' Notice of Motion and Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate Judgment." After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the written submission of the parties, and the pleadings in the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Intervenor's Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

2. That Portion of the Court's February 10th Order granting summary judgment to Petitioners Hannah Gorski, Donna Mortenson and Audrey Verlo is vacated.

3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein

4. Any other relief not fully set forth herein is expressly denied.

Dated: 3/2/09

Source: Order on Intervenor's Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate Judgment via MoritzLaw.OSU.edu

The remaining forty or so voters still had the opportunity to provide additional evidence to support their original motion; nineteen voters then renewed their previous motion on February 20th. The court would release the following order with respect to this renewed:

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Court on February 27, 2009, upon Petitioners' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following:

ORDER

1. Petitioners' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2. The following absentee ballots shall he provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to be opened and counted at a date to be determined by the Court, and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under law.

[List of 14 Voters by Name and County, CSV]

3. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED.

4. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference.

Dated this 11th day of March 2009.

Source: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov

Fourteen of the nineteen petitioners were granted their requested relief as their ballots were ordered to be opened and counted, eventually. Three of the neglected five voters then tried again by further requesting that the ECC count their vote. This motion was filled on March 31st and is excerpted below:

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioners' Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the written submission of the parties, and the pleadings in the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioners' Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in full.

2. That portion of the Court's March 11th Order granting summary judgment to Petitioners Donald and Donelda Applebee is vacated.

3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein

4. Any other relief not fully set forth herein is expressly denied.

Dated: March 31, 2009

...

II. Petitioners' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted

In their second renewed motion for summary judgment, Petitioners seek summary judgment on claims brought by four voters: Katie Kaszysnki, Roxanna Saad, Kourteney Dropps, and Tempest Moore. In addition to the evidence presented by Petitioners in support of their motion for summary judgment, the Court in the election contest received evidence as to each of these voters. As in prior orders, the Court looks at the individualized evidence in support of Petitioners' claims that their ballots were properly cast and rejected in error in the November 4, 2008 election. The Court examines each of the identified Petitioners in tum.

Source: Order Granting Petitioners Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov

The three petitioners who were the subject of the second renewed motion were granted their relief, but two other, already relieved voters were not so fortunate. These two voters will not have their ballot examined for potential inclusion; there was apparently a clerical error that lead to their inclusion in one of the previous orders. This brings the total number of relieved Nauen petitioners to 35 (or 36). I've provided a recap of the Nauen orders below that accompanies a much more detailed spreadsheet:

Extrapolations: Nauen Petitioners and ECC Ordered Opened & Counted [PDF, 125KB]

Date         Type     Party          Result      Total Votes
Jan 21      Motion    Nauen      64 Petitioners       0
Feb 10       Order    Nauen       Count 23 (24)     23 (24)
Mar  2       Order   Coleman        Vacate 3        20 (21)
Mar 11       Order    Nauen         Count 14        34 (35)
Mar 31       Order    Nauen        Count 3 (4)      37 (38)
                                    Vacate 2        35 (36)

While the Nauen group accounts for the vast majority of previously relieved voters, their was one other group, brought forth by the Contestee, Al Franken. The following order by the ECC takes us back to February 23rd addresses twelve voters listed within Franken's original counterclaim:

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Court on January 23, 2009, upon Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestants' Claims and on Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestee's Counterclaims. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following:

ORDER

1. Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestee's Counterclaims is GRANTED IN" PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2. The following absentee ballots shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to be opened and counted at a date to be determined by the Court, and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under law.

[List of 12 Voters by Name and County, CSV]

3. Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestants' Claims is DENIED.

4. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED.

5. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference.

Dated: February 23, 2009

Source: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Contestees Conditional Motions for Partial Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov

These twelve voters votes will eventually be counted bringing the total number of previously relieved voters 47 (or 48):

Date         Type     Party          Result      Total Votes
Feb 23       Order   Franken        Count 12        47 (48)

Each of the 47 (or 48) are included within the list of 400 requested by the ECC on March 31st. The 400 are supposed to be provided to the court by Monday, April 6th at noon so the process of opening and counting each ballot can begin tomorrow (Tuesday) morning at 9:30 AM CT. At that point, the counting will begin with respect to Minnesota law; that is, because a ballot is instructed to be opened, it may not be counted. Overvoting and undervoting may have occurred, or the voter may have improperly marked their ballot; a multitude of issues could prevent a physical ballot from being counted above and beyond that which has already been determined by the ECC; simply that the absentee ballot was legally cast.

The physical counting of these 400 ballots will take place in the same courtroom and may or may not be open to the public, due to privacy concerns; but in either case we should know the result Tuesday evening. If the process is public, theuptake.org will probably provide a live stream.