Cleary, assistant chief judge at Ramsey County District Court, identifies himself as a WSJ subscriber of three decades’ standing who doesn’t always agree with the newspaper’s editorials but was particularly disappointed by this one, which he finds “long on partisan tone and short on accurate reporting.”

Read Cleary’s complete letter after the jump.

Dear Sirs:

As a subscriber of your newspaper for almost three decades, I don’t expect to always agree with your editorial viewpoint. Yet I am nevertheless very disappointed when I read an editorial long on partisan tone and short on accurate reporting.

As a member of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, appointed pursuant to statute, I have attended all nine Board open meetings held the past seven weeks. I am knowledgeable about the proceedings as well as Minnesota’s election laws. Our members (two Supreme Court Justices, two District Court Judges, and Secretary of State Ritchie) came from all political backgrounds, openly expressed our opinions at the meetings, and can hardly be accurately described as “meek,” unless you mean “meek” by New York in-your-face standards. Your groundless attack on Secretary Ritchie reflects poorly on the author; Ritchie worked assiduously at avoiding partisanship in these proceedings.

As to the Board as a whole, all of our major votes were unanimous. We consistently followed the law in limiting our involvement to a non-adjudicative role, declining both candidate’s attempts to expand our mandate. Further, we painstakingly reviewed each challenged ballot, some more than once, to confirm that we were ruling in a consistent manner. One can only assume, based on the tone of the editorial, the numerous inaccuracies, and the over-the-top slam at Al Franken (”tainted and undeserving”?) that had Norm Coleman come out on top in this recount, the members of the Board would have been praised as “strong-willed, intelligent, and perceptive.” We won’t hold our breath waiting for that editorial to appear.

Edward J. Cleary

Assistant Chief Judge

Second Judicial District

Minnesota State Canvassing Board

Franken claiming victory outside his Minneapolis home. Photo: Stefan Lund

Al Franken, calling himself “the next senator from Minnesota,” said Monday afternoon he is ready to go to Washington, D.C., to get to work just as soon as possible.

But Franken didn’t respond to reporters’ shouted questions about exactly when he would go to Washington and retreated up the front steps of his downtown Minneapolis townhouse with his wife, Franni, and campaign aides.

In a brief statement in which he twice referred to his “victory,” Franken also acknowledged just how close his 225-vote margin of victory over former Sen. Norm Coleman was. “I didn’t win the support of every Minnesotan. I’m going to have to earn it,” he said. “I work for you now and I will work hard to earn your confidence.”

Franken paid tribute to Coleman with a note of sympathy that recalled former Minnesota Gov. Karl Rolvaag’s statement after the state’s last big recount in 1962. “I know that this isn’t easy” for the Colemans, Franken said, because his own family had faced tough days since the election. But he described the recount process as “long, fair and … thorough.”

With a nod toward threats of lawsuits and filibusters, Franken said he hoped Minnesota would continue to be served by two senators “without interruption.” Whatever happens on that score, Franken said he would “focus all my attention and all my energies” on working on issues facing Minnesotans — including an economy he said was in the “worst crisis since the Great Depression.”

Franken’s appearance was one of a very few he’s made since Election Day, and his statement included offerings of thanks to staff, supporters and others that “I wish I’d been able to give on Election Night.” He also thanked election workers in a state that he said had shown the world it “takes its democracy seriously.”

As Franken ended with a pledge to get to work, a woman passerby who had stopped to listen shouted out, “Yeah, get on the job!” From the tone of her voice, it wasn’t entirely clear whether she was a Franken fan, a Coleman backer or simply another citizen ready for the recount to end.

Here is the prepared text of Franken’s statement as released by his campaign:

It has been a remarkable couple of months. Our recount brought national attention
to Minnesota, and what Americans saw is that we take our democracy seriously. Our
recount process was long, it was fair, and it was thorough. We should all be proud
of our state, and we should all be grateful for the incredible hard work and
dedication of all of our elections officials, from the state canvassing board and
the Secretary of State’s office to the officials in the cities and counties and
precincts of Minnesota.

After 62 days, after the careful and painstaking hand inspection of nearly 3
million ballots, after hours and hours of hard work by elections officials and
volunteers across the state, I am proud and humbled to stand before you as the next
Senator from Minnesota.

This victory is incredibly humbling - not just because it was so narrow, but
because of the tremendous responsibility it gives me on behalf of the people of
Minnesota.

While the recount process played out, the challenges facing our state and our
nation have only grown. With tensions in the Middle East reaching the boiling
point, our economy facing its worst crisis since the 1930s, and Minnesota’s middle
class families being squeezed harder than ever, it’s clear that we have a lot of
important work to do.

I want you all to know that I’m ready to go to Washington and get to work just as
soon as possible. And I look forward to joining President-Elect Obama and Senator
Klobuchar in getting our country moving in the right direction again.

I know this is not an easy day for Norm Coleman and his family, and I know that
because Franni and I and the kids have had plenty of time over the past two months
to contemplate the possibility that this election would turn out differently. Norm
has worked hard for this state and this country, and I hope to ask for his help to
ensure that Minnesotans can continue to count on receiving excellent constituent
services from their two Senators without interruption.

I also know that this was a hard-fought victory, and that I didn’t win the support
of every Minnesotan. I’m going to have to earn it by being a Senator who fights for
every Minnesotan, whether you voted for me or not. And I want every Minnesotan to
hear me say: I work for you now. And I will work hard to earn your confidence.

There may still be additional legal proceedings related to our recount. But I’m
now in the business of serving the people of Minnesota. And the best way I can
serve the people of Minnesota right now is to focus all my attention and all my
energies on getting to work for them on the issues we’ll be facing together.

I would like to close by doing something I wish I’d gotten a chance to do properly
on Election Night, and that is to thank some people. My amazing staff and
supporters across the state who made this victory possible and stuck with us this
whole way. All the volunteers who woke up the morning after Election Day and got
right back to work to help our recount effort. Our state’s dedicated elections
officials, our tremendous congressional delegation, and our fantastic Senator, Amy
Klobuchar, who continues to be a mentor and an inspiration. And, of course, my
beautiful wife Franni and our amazing family.

For our state, today marked the end of a long process that will forever be a part
of Minnesota history. But today is also a beginning. The history of our country
will be forever altered by what we do together to address the challenges we face
together. So, with tremendous gratitude for the victory we have won, I’m ready to
get to work.

Thank you.

Magnuson, Schumer, Cornyn

Here are three quotes from the last 24 hours on the Minnesota recount between Al Franken and former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman:

“Everything’s been looked at and looked at carefully,” is how Minnesota Supreme Court Justice and State Canvassing Board Member Eric Magnuson sees it, according to a news report this morning. “If there were any nits to be picked, they’ve been picked.”

“It is now clear that Al Franken won the election. The Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow to wrap up its work and certify him the winner,” U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, former chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement Sunday. “With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota’s seat not remain empty.”

“Senator Schumer will likely play a key role in determining who ultimately assumes this Senate seat,” responded U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Pre-judging the outcome while litigation is still pending calls into question his ability to impartially preside over this matter when it comes before the Committee, as it most certainly will.”

Cornyn elaborated on his position and the likelihood of a filibuster over seating Franken this morning on CNN’s “American Morning.” Excerpts after the jump. Here are excerpts from Cornyn’s Monday appearance on CNN’s “American Morning” program:

CNN: So you’re saying that the legal avenues for Norm Coleman have not been exhausted. You don’t want Al — Al Franken to be seated, or anyone to be seated, until all the legal challenges in Minnesota are up?

CORNYN: That’s correct. And the — and the the rules to the Senate — Rule Two of the rules of the Senate require an election certificate. In Minnesota, that has to be signed by both the secretary of state and the governor, and it can’t be issued before seven days have expired after the canvassing board’s decision. So we’re getting closer to a resolution but we’re not there yet. …

CNN: Are you guys going to filibuster?

CORNYN: Well, in filibuster, of course, in the Senate means unless you can get 60 votes to proceed, then — then you don’t. We continue debating it. And I think that is the likelihood here if the Democrats try to ignore the Senate Rule Two and Minnesota law and try to short-circuit this process.

“I’ve had better days,” Knaak conceded. “The numbers are what they are.” But he repeated that the “process was broken” and predicted that “the election will still be called in Coleman’s favor.”

That will happen, Coleman attorney Tony Trimble said, when hundreds of absentee ballots that the campaign still wants reviewed are opened and counted. “We’re still trying to ferret out for counting these 600 ballots,” he said, adding that fixing more than 100 allegedly double-counted ballots in Minneapolis would help Coleman as well.

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said he expected that the State Canvassing Board would declare a result of the election on Monday — a result that seems all but certain to favor Franken.

“I’m also not happy that the two campaigns had the right to veto” once-rejected absentee ballots that local officials, on review, determined should be counted — referring to a controversial Dec. 18 state Supreme Court ruling that only absentee ballots that election officials and campaign representatives could agree upon should be counted.

After the jump, Darby’s statement and a short video clip in which Darby, co-founder of Common Ground Collective, advocates for Hurricane Katrina victims.

December 29, 2008

To All Concerned,

The struggles for peace and justice have accomplished significant change throughout history. I’ve had the honor to work with many varying groups and individuals on behalf of marginalized communities and in various struggles. There are currently allegations in the media that I have worked undercover for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This allegation no doubt confuses many activists who know me and probably leaves many wondering why I would seemingly choose to engage in such an endeavor. The simple truth is that I have chosen to work with the Federal Bureau of investigation.
As compelling as the natural human desire to reason and express oneself can be, regardless, I must hold my comments at this time on certain aspects of the situation. That said, there are a few statements and generalizations I will make relating to my recent choices.

Though I’ve made and will no doubt continue to make many mistakes in efforts to better our world, I am satisfied with the efforts in which I have participated. Like many of you, I do my best to act in good conscience and to do what I believe to be most helpful to the world. Though my views on how to give of myself have changed substantially over the years, ultimately the motivations behind my choices remain the same. I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter.

I strongly believe that people innocent of an act should stand up for themselves and that those who choose to engage in an act should accept responsibility and explain the reasoning for their choices.

It is very dangerous when a few individuals engage in or act on a belief system in which they feel they know the real truth and that all others are ignorant and therefore have no right to meet and express their political views.

Additionally, when people act out of anger and hatred, and then claim that their actions were part of a movement or somehow tied into the struggle for social justice only after being caught, it’s damaging to the efforts of those who do give of themselves to better this world. Many people become activists as a result of discovering that others have distorted history and made heroes and assigned intentions to people who really didn’t act to better the world. The practice of placing noble intentions after the fact on actions which did not have noble motivations has no place in a movement for social justice.

The majority of the activists who went to St. Paul did so with pure intentions and simply wanted to express their disagreements with the Republican Party. It’s unfortunate that some used the group as cover for intentions that the rest of the group did not agree with or knew nothing about and are now, consequently, having parts of their lives and their peace of mind uprooted over.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of you reading this letter will say and feel all possible bad things about my choices and for me. I made the choice to have my identity revealed and was well aware of the consequences for doing so. I know that the temptation to silence or ignore the voice of someone who you strongly disagree with can be overwhelming in matters such as this one; and no doubt many people will try to do just that to me. I have confidence that there will be a few people interested in discussion and in better understanding views different from their own, especially from one of their own. My sincere hope is that the entire matter results in better understanding for everyone.

Many of you went against my wishes and spoke publicly in defense of me. Those involved were correct when they wrote that I wasn’t making my choices for financial reasons or to avoid some sort of prosecution. They were incorrect that my ideology didn’t support such choices. One individual who publically defended me stated that they didn’t believe I was working undercover because the government would have used my access to take down a more prominent activist if the allegations were true. If indeed the government or I was interested in doing so, it could have happened in such a manner. However, the incorrect notion that the government was out to silence dissent was the cause for the mistake made by that person. In defense of the individuals who openly did their best to do what they thought was defending me, they did not know the truth and they had no way of knowing the truth due to their ideological and personal attachments to me. It’s unfortunate that the truth couldn’t have come out sooner and that the needed preparations for such a disclosure take time. I really did mean it when I said that I didn’t want to discuss it and that I didn’t want folks addressing the allegations.

Again, I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter. I’m looking forward to open dialogue and debate regarding the motivations and experiences I’ve had and the ethical questions they pose.

In Solidarity,

Brandon Michael Darby

It’s the second politically unpalatable presidential pardon in six weeks to touch Coleman, who remains in the grips of a drawn-out recount in his bid for re-election against Democratic challenger Al Franken. The Minnesota Independent broke the news last month that soon after taking office in 2003, Coleman wrote letters of support for the pardon application of Frank Vennes, Jr. A convicted money launderer now best known as an associate of accused Ponzi schemer Tom Petters, Vennes was also a donor to Coleman’s 2002 campaign fund and to political action committees that supported Coleman.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann revoked her support of a pardon for Vennes after the Petters scandal broke this year. She also redirected a portion of Vennes’s contributions to her campaign to Minnesota Teen Challenge, a faith-based drug treatment program that’s been a favorite of Minnesota politicians.

The Minnesota Supreme Court will not wade into the murky issue of allegedly double-counted ballots in the U.S. Senate contest. Sen. Norm Coleman’s campaign believes that in some instances both duplicate and original ballots were mistakenly included in the statewide manual recount. It had asked the state’s top court to prohibit the canvassing board from certifying any election results until the issue is resolved.

But a unanimous Supreme Court ruled today that it doesn’t have sufficient information to get involved in the matter. “We do not and cannot decide that question based on the record presented in this abbreviated proceeding,” Justice Alan Page wrote in his opinion for the court.

This doesn’t mean, however, that the issue of double-counted ballots is dead. More than likely it will now be contested in district court, where there would be an opportunity for both sides to present evidence and testimony on the matter. Coleman attorney Fritz Knaak told Minnesota Public Radio’s Tom Scheck today that the decision “virtually guarantees that this will be decided in an election contest.”

The Franken campaign, not surprisingly, hailed the Supreme Court’s action. “Minnesotans have waited a long time to find out who won this race,” communications director Andy Barr said in a statement, “and today’s unanimous ruling means that the process can move forward despite attempts to halt its progress and cast doubt on the result.”

In a related matter the Supreme Court also extended the deadline for local election officials to identify wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. The justices originally ordered county canvassing boards to certify adjusted tallies that included such ballots by the end of the calendar year. Under today’s order they are now required to identify any mistakenly rejected absentee ballots and deliver them to the Secretary of State’s office by January 2. The state’s top election official will then have two days to tabulate the ballots.

The canvassing board is slated to meet on January 5 and 6. Theoretically it could (finally) certify a winner at that time.

As on Friday, five sitting justices grilled campaign attorneys, signaling dissatisfaction with both sides’ positions on a Coleman recount lawsuit. (Two of the seven-member court absented themselves because they’re serving on the State Canvassing Board that the Coleman campaign has been named as a defendant in the duplicates case.)

Roger Magnuson, Coleman’s attorney, asserted there’s evidence of double counting in 25 counties and wants the State Canvassing Board to check it out before certifying the vote. The double counting allegedly happened when voters’ original ballots got separated from the duplicate ballots onto which local election officials transferred the votes when vote-counting machines couldn’t read the original.

“This disenfranchises all the other voters,” Magnuson said, adding that the narrow margin of the race, which now unofficially has Franken at a 47-vote advantage, raises the specter “that the loser is declared the winner.”

Associate Justice Paul Anderson prodded Magnuson on questions of evidence and process. “Isn’t this an evidentiary issue best left for an election contest?” Anderson asked. (Election contests are lawsuits filed after the State Canvassing Board certifies the election results.) He also asked how the electoral emergency that the Coleman side asserts in the lawsuit measures up against the judicial yardstick scenario of a house burning down.

“[There is] enough suspicion, enough evidence,” Magnuson said. “[We're asking for] an extraordinary intervention simply to do the due diligence to settle this matter.”

Magnuson cited comments of concern about the likelihood of double-counted votes that Associate Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson made last week as a member of the State Canvassing Board. (Chief Justice Eric Magnuson was also not present for today’s hearing because, like G. Barry Anderson, he’s on the State Canvassing Board.) Associate Justice Alan Page bristled at that: “Our fellow justices aren’t here and they don’t have to wrestle with this issue like we do.”

One major point of contention was how much work the requested court action would compel on the part of local election officials. Attorney Magnuson said it would be limited to 25 precincts statewide; “They’re cherry picking,” Franken attorney Bill Pentelovich countered. The Coleman camp is trying to rewrite agreed-upon rules for counting duplicate ballots, he said, and to ensure fairness “all 4,001 precincts would have to be recounted.”

Attorney Dan Rogan, speaking on behalf of defendant Hennepin County, said Coleman’s suit was wrong to single out counties at all because the remedy of recounting bypasses county canvassing boards.

Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney Peter Ginder said statements by City Elections Director Cindy Reichert about cases of double-counted votes — which Coleman’s camp frequently cites to buttress its claims — merely represented one of several possible explanations for tabulation discrepancies.

Attorney General Lori Swanson asserted the State Canvassing Board’s duty to sidestep the duplicate ballot question since — despite four of its members being judges — it has no authority to conduct the necessary fact-finding and make judgements based on such evidence.

That wasn’t sufficient, Attorney Magnuson said: “This court ought not to remain passive because this particular issue might determine the election in terms of who’s declared [victor].”

With that the court adjourned, making no immediate ruling from the bench — though a decision could come at any time.

The St. Paul City Attorney’s office has so far reviewed 241 potential criminal cases stemming from arrests during the Republican National Convention. Nearly half of the reviews didn’t result in charges being filed owing to a lack of sufficient evidence. Of the remaining incidents, 48 have been resolved by either a guilty plea or payment of a fine, while 81 have been formally charged and are headed towards trial.

St. Paul City Attorney John Choi emphasized that just because charges were not pursued it doesn’t mean that the police acted inappropriately in making an arrest. “When a police officer is on the scene they’re not thinking about whether or not this is a prosecutable offense,” he said. “They’re thinking about whether or not there’s probable cause to arrest this person.”

Roughly 650 potential cases have been presented to the city attorney’s office stemming from activities during the four-day gathering — meaning just over 400 have not yet been reviewed. But almost all of those remaining arrests were made during a mass sweep on the Marion St. bridge during the final day of the convention.

Choi stated that he’s not aware of any civil cases that have been brought against the City of St. Paul relating to alleged civil rights violations during the convention. In two instances, however, the city has received letters from attorneys stating that they intend to file such lawsuits in the future.

The most common charge pursued by the city attorney’s office relating to RNC events is unlawful assembly. But other misdemeanor infractions include criminal damage to property, disorderly conduct and third-degree riot.

More serious, felony charges are being handled by the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office. They are prosecuting roughly 20-such cases, including charges lodged against the so-called RNC 8. In addition there are two Texas men facing federal firearms charges for allegedly attempting to disrupt the convention with Molotov cocktails. They are slated to go on trial next month.

Choi expressed satisfaction with how the RNC-related cases are proceeding, but stated that they are particularly thorny because of the political elements involved. “For the RNC there are 650 cases and they’re all very intense,” he said, noting that such cases attract much more public scrutiny than those typically handled by his office. “We have to do the best that we can with the limited resources that we have and the challenges that come with these cases.”

“I understand why these were challenged; these were very close calls,” acknowledged Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson (pictured), a member of the canvassing board. “I saw nothing in any of those that gave me cause to change my vote.”

While this issue was resolved promptly, there are still numerous other kinks to be worked out before a final vote tally can be determined in the exceedingly close contest. Over the weekend, employees of the Secretary of State’s office sorted through roughly 6,600 ballots that had initially been challenged by the two campaigns, adding them to the tally for the appropriate candidate. Each campaign, however, believes that during this process some votes were either allocated to the wrong candidate or not counted at all. The Coleman campaign argues that at least 21 ballots were counted for the wrong candidate. Al Franken’s campaign, likewise, believes that at least six ballots were allocated in error, while an additional 36 were left out of the count entirely.

The canvassing board will meet again on December 30 to deal with any corrections to the tally that need to be made owing to such human errors. Presently Franken leads the incumbent by nearly 50 votes, according to most independent tallies.

“Obviously we’re a little disappointed with what we saw in there,” said Coleman attorney Fritz Knaak, following the board’s hearing. “We respectfully disagree with some of what the board did.” But Knaak expressed optimism that Coleman will ultimately prevail in the contest. “We see the number as much better from our point of view,” he said, but declined to provide any specifics. “Our internal count is something that we don’t share.”

There are two other sets of ballots that will play a factor in determining who is ultimately declared the victor in the contest. This afternoon the Minnesota Supreme Court will take up the issue of purportedly double-counted ballots. The Coleman campaign argues that in some instances both duplicate and original ballots were included in the tally, resulting in some ballots being allocated twice. It’s seeking to have the canvassing board enjoined from certifying the election results until the issue is resolved. The Franken campaign denies that any votes have been double-counted.

The other contentious issue is how to deal with absentee ballots that were wrongly rejected by local election officials. There are thought to be roughly 1,600 such ballots statewide. Last week the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that both campaigns — in coordination with the Secretary of State’s office, the state canvassing board and local election officials — must come up with a process for deciding which absentee ballots were wrongly rejected by the end of the calendar year.

Apparently the various parties are close to reaching such an agreement. A proposed change to the Supreme Court’s order, designed to protect the privacy of voters, has been submitted to the court and a preliminary framework for sorting through the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots has been worked out. “That’s very good momentum for us in terms of getting this done,” said Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a member of the canvassing board. But he declined to speculate when the five-member panel might ultimately certify a winner. “I have no way to predict the future or the activities of the state canvassing board.”