Wed. Apr 17th, 2024

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R), Senator Al Franken (D-MN) and former Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN)

Written by Eric Kleefeld for TPM

The right-wing media has been going ape over a study from Minnesota Majority, a conservative group in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, claiming that hundreds of felons illegally voted in the disputed 2008 Senate race that ultimately saw comedian and Democratic activist Al Franken defeat incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman by a mere 312 votes out of 2.9 million. But is there any validity to it? Nope.

Fox News — an outlet that has a long-running bad relationship with Franken — claims: “The final recount vote in the race, determined six months after Election Day, showed Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes — fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, according to Minnesota Majority’s newly released study, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records.”

But were there really so many illegal ballots? And did they all go for Al Franken? As TPM’s in-house expert on that roller-coaster of an election, recount and litigation, allow me to walk you through all the problems with this new claim — plus the small kernel of truth that lies within.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2012, fielded a very loaded question on Fox News on Wednesday, from host Brian Kilmeade, asking Pawlenty to “weigh in on the controversy with felons voting for Al Franken.” Check out the 3:50 mark…


“There’s a group here in Minnesota that’s investigated that,” said Pawlenty. “They seem to have found credible evidence that many felons who are not supposed to be voting actually voted in the Franken-Coleman election. I suspect they favored Al Franken. I don’t know that. But if that turned out to be true, they may have flipped the election. In a very close election, there were only few-hundred vote difference, as you know.”

And the Star Tribune reported on Coleman’s reaction:

Coleman said Wednesday that he is “not looking back.” But he also termed Franken an “accidental senator,” who benefited from court rulings that overlooked an array of alleged voting irregularities.

“There’s always going to be a cloud of doubt that hovers over this election, and this thickens the cloud,” Coleman said.

As it turns out, though, Minnesota Majority’s study has had its share of sloppiness and false assumptions. As the Twin Cities NBC affiliate noted, it’s not even proven that hundreds of felons illegally voted at all — in some cases there were felons who could legally vote in Minnesota, having had their rights restored, and in other cases Minnesota Majority submitted the names of the wrong people:

In reality, that has not been proven. And the actual number of felons who voted illegally will likely be much lower based on reviews from prosecutors who received Minnesota Majority’s lists in the form of spread sheets in February.

“We received about 480 names from Minnesota Majority,” Ramsey County’s lead prosecutor Phil Carruthers told KARE Wednesday, “About 270 were clearly inaccurate and were rejected right from the get-go.”

He said a quick review revealed the names and birthdates didn’t match, or that the felons in question were no longer barred from voting.

In addition, instances of individual felons voting is different from any organized fraud. As Franken’s former attorney Marc Elias told The Hill: “Sen. Coleman was represented by some of the best lawyers there are in the country. At the end of that process, the lead lawyer for Sen. Coleman told the state Supreme Court that there was no evidence of persistent fraud in the election.”

Furthermore, the report runs up against a pesky obstacle that in this country dates back to the late 19th century, called the secret ballot. Even if it were proven that hundreds of illegal votes were cast, it can’t ever be proven who those people voted for. Right-wing media outlets have simply been assuming that all the felons voted for Franken. In fact, there was one solid case in January 2009 of a felon who pled guilty to illegally voting — and he said he voted for Coleman, though his word is obviously less than 100% credible. But in any case, the point stands: It can’t be proven who any one of these people would have voted for, or what any spread might have been, much less that they would have all voted for one candidate out of several who were on the ballot.

If the point here is to cast doubt on Franken’s election, here’s the funny truth of it all: Anybody who was watching that election, or any similar super-close election, already knows that there exists a certain level of reasonable doubt about the whole thing. In an election that close, there will always be a margin of error that is wider than the margin of victory — as a top county election official openly admitted at the trial.

Of course, this would also mean that this very same doubt would have clouded any win for Coleman, too. And it should also be noted that a similar circumstance was present in 2000, when George W. Bush officially won the state of Florida over Al Gore by a margin of 537 votes out of nearly six million — a smaller percentage difference than Franken’s final win in Minnesota — amidst allegations of vote suppression and faulty ballots. And while the true outcome of that election remains a genuine mystery, too, folks on the right never seem to be at all concerned about or to even acknowledge that particular conundrum.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RS Janes
13 years ago

The election of Al Franken really sticks in the right-wing craw. First of all, they thought he’d be easy to beat because they underestimated him as just some airhead TV comedian. Now they realize his knowledge of the issues, his sincere dedication to progressive values, and his sharp humor is putting the slack-jawed Know-Nothings of the GOP to shame, including former senatorial slouch and Bush cabana boy Norm Coleman. (I just heard Al on the floor of the Senate the other day — on C-SPAN, of course — making a cogent case for true Wall Street reform. He was great.) They weren’t able to cheat enough in MN’s fairly clean election system, so now they want to cast doubt on it. I’d bet right now that if Al runs for reelection, he’ll win by a landslide — let’s see what Fox does if that happens. Meanwhile, crazy Michele Bachmann is only slightly ahead of Tarryl Clark in MN’s Sixth; Clark’s victory is another bet I’d gladly make.

BTW, across the country in SC, it looks like Rep. Joe “You Lie!” Wilson may be in some trouble, judging by the amount of money going into that campaign.

Ken Carman
13 years ago

My only cynical comment about Al is, “So what do you think of election fraud now?” When he was on Sirius Left if anyone called about Republican dirty vote related tricks, the hazards of electronic voting… he would get real rude, insult them, hang up on them…

My guess is he still thinks this is all about him.


He does seem to be good at what he does.., now. I thought he sucked royally as a talk show host: for different reasons. He just didn’t have the radio chops. The best talk show hosts on radio are radio guys/gals. On SNL he was kind of a one trick pony: “Hi. I’m Al Franken and you’re not.” Glad he found a place. As I typed: seems to have talent. And his timing is better too!

RS Janes
13 years ago

I wonder if he was positioning himself to be a Dem candidate even when he was on the radio and knew that if he indulged in any voter fraud ‘conspiracy theories’ it would ruin his chances of running for office as a Democrat? (Unfortunately.)

What Al really believes about the voting machine scandal in this country is a mystery. Case in point: Mark Crispin Miller said he talked to John Kerry at a fundraiser and Kerry confirmed he thought Bush stole Ohio in 2004, but when Miller wrote about that conversation, Kerry denied it, so you never know.

I have an intelligent, progressive friend who, nevertheless, doesn’t want to hear about voter fraud or hacked machines no matter what the evidence — he specifically asked me not to send him emails or links to articles on the subject. It’s not that he doesn’t care — I think it’s more like he’s terrified to admit the possibility — it opens up too many uncomfortable avenues of thought for a liberal Democrat. Perhaps Al is in that category.

Franken’s true talent on SNL was as a writer more than performer; the Stuart Smalley and his other characters were only mildly amusing at best IMO.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x