Minnesota, the Re-count Happy State.

Minnesota was witness to two major recounts in the past 3 years. The first being the Senate race between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, and Democratic contender Al Franken in 2008, the second being the gubernatorial race between R Tom Emmer and former US senator D Mark Dayton in 2010. The earlier recount drew on for over eight months, while the latter was resolved a little over one month.

Both recounts were triggered automatically on account of the margins of victory. The Franken-Coleman race with Franken trailing by 215 votes, and the gubernatorial race with Dayton ahead by 9,000 votes. According to Voter Action an updated law came out prior to the Senate race:

[in 2008] The law expands on provisions of Minnesota’s recount law which provides for recounts in races within a margin of victory of 0.5%. Under the new added provision, candidates in any contest with a 5% margin of victory may call for a hand recount, at their expense, of up to three precincts. If the requested recount shows a difference greater than 0.5% compared to the Election Day results, there will be hand recounting of additional precincts. That could lead to a contest-wide recount if more disparities between the reported results and the hand counts are discovered.

Both recounts involved campaigns contesting votes, searching for discredited votes and more. The link below showcases some of the ridiculous (on account of both the voters as well as the candidates) votes called into question deemed “frivolous” when voter intent is clear during the Dayton/Emmer recount. Go ahead, read it, you may get a laugh or two.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/12/01/photos-challenged-ballots/

The Franken/Coleman race involved numerous legal volleys and climbing through the appellate and ultimately led the contest to the Supreme Court. No doubt the 60 vote majority in the Senate was a driver for Coleman’s delay of the certification of the election results. When the results of the race were confirmed, the Coleman camp argued that the recount process was uneven from precinct to precinct. This points to how framing can shift from moment to moment within such contestations based on new developments. Before, it was a battle (for Coleman) to recount less precincts because he was ahead. When the tides changed in favor of Franken, the rhetoric of de-legitimizing the process became the major framework the Coleman group worked under.

Because the process was so drawn out, media coverage of it waned into the back pages of the newspaper as the months wore on, much like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe Miller is right to point to the importance of the media role as a huge actor in disseminating competing information about “correct” outcomes. (and I agree with the other poster about the legitimacy of collective info generated through media is questionable, though remember that most people only watch the morning and evening news, oftentimes only the local news. Additionally, we in America have a huge amount of “alternative media” compared to other countries).

Perhaps such circulation in the media as the above slideshow in addition to recount fatigue contributed to the speedier resolution of the latter recount. The practice round also probably streamlined the process by figuring out what worked and what didn’t. In any case, these examples illustrate the infrastructures in place which influence and drive the recount process. I was gearing up for another long and drawn out recount, but luckily did not have to wait too long for the second result (being that the person ahead was on “my side” however restricted this side may be). These examples also prove that Minnesota’s recount laws work, while showcasing how contested races can act as power plays in the broader political arena as in the Coleman case. Franken lost half of his term to the court system and Minnesota lost a voice in the senate for that time.

As an aside, I worked for the primary presidential election in Seattle at one of those electronic voting machines and was extremely hesitant to complete my post in that position. Until I learned about the machine. There were not one, but two paper trails, one contained within the machine, and the other rolled into a canister. The voter could see their choice on the paper through a window. This was not an electronic counter, but an actual voting machine for the disabled. Knowing there was in fact a paper trail left me more at ease with the position, and only a handful of folks utilized the resource. I know my reluctance to operate this machine had to do with the 2000 election although the technology was totally different, illustrating the pervasiveness of social memory across shifting contexts.