Last year, many Ohio counties mailed out unsolicited absentee-ballot applications to registered voters, attempting to increase early voting and therefore cut down on long lines at the polls on Election Day. But new Ohio Secretary of State John Husted issued a directive (PDF) in August prohibiting all county boards of elections from mailing unsolicited applications this year.

Last November, of the nearly 4 million votes cast in the election, over 1 million were mailed absentee ballots.

Husted said that, in the interest of uniformity of treatment, it would be unfair to allow counties with sufficient funds to give their residents greater access to the polls than counties that csn’t afford the cost of sending out the applications.

“To give voters in one county greater access than voters in another county is, on its face, unfair and undermines confidence in our elections system,” he wrote in a release accompanying the directive.

“Uniformity in the way in which Ohio’s elections are administered is of the utmost importance, which is why Ohio must have a standardized approach to administering elections that ensures equal access for all voters.”

The decision, however, caused some county administrators to call foul.  Cuyahoga County Executive Edward FitzGerald posted a scathing response on Facebook, taking shots at Husted, Gov. John Kasich and Ohio’s history of inconsistent election policies:

“A few quick facts: First, the money for mailing these ballots has been in the budget since 2010, and no additional funds will be spent,” he wrote of his county.  “Second, this program was instituted in larger counties across Ohio after the fiasco at the polls in 2004, which resulted in totally unacceptable delays and long lines at the polls, wherein some people lost their right to vote.”

FitzGerald observed nearly half of voters in Cuyahoga County voted by mail in 2010, and pointed out that the League of Women Voters consider the mailings a “recognized best practice.”

“The state’s attempt in this matter, if it continues, will once again make Ohio known for attempts at voter suppression,” he said.

After meeting with FitzGerald, Husted issued another release detailing his plan: His directive for 2011 would remain in effect, but efforts for the 2012 election would get funds from the Help America Vote Act, designed to allow states to use federal money to ensure fair access to the polls.

The agreement’s provisions:

* Husted has agreed to have his office send an application to vote by mail to voters in all 88 Ohio counties in advance of next year’s presidential election.
* In return, FitzGerald will freeze a county plan to send all active voters in Cuyahoga County an application to vote by mail this fall. The mailing will be replaced by an public outreach effort to make sure Cuyahoga County voters understand how to vote early this fall.

FitzGerald commended the plan, calling it “one of the largest steps forward in access to the ballot in years,” according to a release, but a FitzGerald spokesman, John Kohlstrand, said it was important to understand that it was “a compromise; it was give-and-take.”

“We wanted to send ballots to everyone in the county,” he said.  “And we used a lot of resources to that effect.”

Kohlstrand added that the agreement was reached in lieu of a lengthy court case, which could have caused voters even more confusion.

Husted’s spokesperson, Matthew McClellan, said the secretary wasn’t worried about the possibility of a sharply decreased turnout or voter confusion in 2011.

“Early voting numbers are higher [than last year’s] in Franklin County,” he said of the county where the state’s capital, Columbus, is located.  “Look at what’s on the ballot: State Issue 2.

“You have a high concentration of government workers in Franklin County, so it really just depends,” he said, referring to unionized public workers energized by the movement to repeal SB5.

The reason, in part, stems from accusations made by Republicans that Democrats have forged absentee ballot applications and plan to vote both by mail and in person. Democrats, in turn, have accused Republicans and the local elections board of throwing out a large number of legitimate absentee ballot requests from Democratic voters. By delaying until tomorrow, the new plan is intended to ensure that the absentee ballots of anyone who voted at the polls on election day will be voided:

• Absentee ballot counting will begin at 12 noon on Wednesday, November 3;
• Ballot counting will take place in the Community Room of the Bucks County Courthouse, 55 E. Court St., Doylestown, PA 18901
• The plan is to have the ballots counted by the employees of the county Board of Elections. This plan includes the use of at least 10 staff members, working in teams of two;
• Each of the two major political parties will be permitted to have five (5) watchers at any one time monitoring the count. Names of the watchers must be submitted to the county Board of Elections prior to the beginning of the count. They may not participate or interfere with the vote counting process;
• Members of the public will also be permitted to observe. They may not participate or interfere with the vote counting process;
• Absentee ballots of voters who voted in person at the polls on Election Day will be voided by the ballot counters;

Recent poll numbers from the race indicate that Murphy is trailing Fitzpatrick by a narrow margin, but has been gaining ground. Overall, the race is listed as a toss-up, meaning the election board’s decision will likely delay any knowledge of the outcome by at least a day.

An isolated incident in a small city government election? Hardly, notes Fox News, which trots out its favorite former Department of Justice lawyer Hans von Spakovsky, now a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, to comment:

“Absentee ballots are now the weapon of choice for people who want to commit voter fraud,” said Hans von Spakousky, a former Justice Department attorney who monitored voter fraud. “Campaigns will order absentee ballots and then follow the postman door to door on the day they are delivered to pick them up and control the vote.”

“Any time you get large numbers of absentee ballots being issued, it should be taken as a sign that trouble is brewing,” he warned.

The story is already getting churned up on right-wing websites with other incidents concerning possible phony voter registration forms in Harris County, Texas, and dire warnings that many states have not sufficiently purged their voter rolls of dead people. RedState, for instance, expounds upon the threat posed by absentee ballots:

Some of the tactics employed in voter fraud and perpetrated by individuals associated with a special interest supporter of a candidate include Pressuring and coaxing first-time voters or those who were “less informed or lacking in knowledge of the voting process, the infirm, the poor, and those with limited skills in the English language” to vote by absentee ballot; Paying voters in cash for casting absentee ballots; Instructing people applying for absentee ballots to phone the candidate’s campaign when the applicant received his or her ballot so that the candidate’s supporters could go to the applicant’s home and “though not authorized by law to do so, ‘assist’ the voter in completing the ballot;” Illegally keeping a stockpile of unmarked absentee ballots and delivering ballots to voters; Lying about whether the person applying for an absentee ballot would in fact be absent on the day of the primary.

All these hypothetical scenarios represent legitimate issues of concern that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent should they occur, but aside from reports out of Daytona Beach and Harris County, it’s hardly clear how “rampant” this phenomenon is, or, for that matter, what kind of impact a couple hundred dead people being left on a state voter roll or a couple dozen absentee ballots being stockpiled by a city commissioner will have on the outcome of the impending midterm elections. It’s worth noting that these stories, intended to stoke fears of stolen elections, are often linked to districts with a high percentage of minority voters.

UPDATE: Jude Seymour has updated numbers that basically end the race (again) for Hoffman–Owens leads by 3,105 votes with only 3,072 absentee ballots outstanding. And that’s with no absentee ballots from Essex, Franklin and St. Lawrence Counties, which went for Owens on election day.

The Watertown Daily Times has the more-or-less final results of the election before absentee ballots were counted. The conservative Gouverneur Times has those results plus the final totals of three counties — three of the seven counties carried by Hoffman on election night — with absentees tallied up.

On election night, voters cast 2,365 ballots in Hamilton County: Hoffman won 50.0% of the vote, Owens won 37.6% and Scozzafava won 12.4%. There were 207 absentee ballots cast. The breakdown:

Doug Hoffman – 81 (39.1%)
Bill Owens – 50 (24.2%)
Dede Scozzafava – 76 (36.7%)

On election night, voters cast 17,674 ballots in Madison County: Hoffman won 50.8% of the vote, Owens won 45.8% and Scozzafava won 3.4%. There were 496 absentee ballots cast. The breakdown:

Doug Hoffman – 170 (34.3%)
Bill Owens – 203 (40.9%)
Dede Scozzafava – 122 (24.6%)

On election night, voters cast 5,165 ballots in Oneida County: Hoffman won 53.8% of the vote, Owens won 39.2% and Scozzafava won 7.0%. There were 762 absentee ballots cast. The breakdown:

Doug Hoffman – 446 (58.5%)
Bill Owens – 219 (28.7%)
Dede Scozzafava – 97 (12.7%)

That’s a lot of variance between three counties. In one, Hoffman did better than he did on election day; in another, both Hoffman and Owens did worse than they did on election day; in another, Owens lost on election day but won on absentees. But the total picture from this batch of 1,465 absentee ballots is:

Doug Hoffman – 697 (47.6%)
Bill Owens – 472 (32.2%)
Dede Scozzafava – 296 (20.1%)

That’s a net 225 votes for Hoffman, who’s down by 2,951 votes with 6,123 left to count. It’s simply not the kind of ratio that will deliver victory. If the numbers keep breaking this way, it would point an Owens win of around 2000 votes. But keep in mind, we don’t have absentees yet in the huge Owens counties of Clinton and St. Lawrence.

The Minnesota canvassing board doesn’t certify a winner; it simply certifies a count. Here we are in the contest phase. In legal terminology, it’s a de novo trial – totally new. It’s not an appeal of the canvassing board’s decision. …

Coleman will try to establish that the ballots have not been counted uniformly, and the different methods led to an inaccurate count. There is evidence for this. …

Coleman might also narrow the margins if the contest board absorbs his arguments about double counting.

I don’t buy it. Sure, anything’s possible at this point, but you have to remember that the courts don’t operate in a vacuum. As much as they should be following the letter of the law, they’re also well aware that the people of Minnesota are thoroughly fed up with this election and want their full dual representation in the U.S. Senate.

According to a recent poll, 49 percent of Minnesotans disagree with Coleman’s plan to challenge the election results, and 44 percent say he should concede even before the justices rule on the case. Among independents in another poll, a majority oppose Coleman’s decision and want Franken to be seated provisionally.

And who are the justices making this decision? They’re a three-judge tribunal appointed by NFL Hall of Famer Alan Page, who is believed to be a Democrat. While his selected judges technically cover the political spectrum — they were appointed by a DFLer (Rudy Perpich), an independent (Jesse Ventura) and a Republican (Arne Carlson), respectively — Carlson has already stated publicly that Coleman should concede. If these judges lean in any direction, it’s likely to be Franken’s.

Then we come to the crux of the matter: the nature of Coleman’s challenges. Quite simply, there’s no consistency to them. Coleman’s cherry-picking lawyers are asking to add some ballots and remove others, without any overarching logic (or much success). The judges will recognize that Franken can play that game too, and unless they want to open up a whole new set of challenges, it seems to me that they’re likely to uphold the canvassing board’s result — and the state Supreme Court’s prior rulings — and send Franken to Washington.

UPDATE: Nate Silver also has some thoughts on this. Worth a read.

At the end of the statewide recount, Franken led by 225 votes, and today he sent letters to Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D), arguing that Minnesota should have full representation in the Senate as the upper chamber begins to debate its agenda. The state leaders have yet to respond.

According to state law, the election certificate cannot be signed within seven days of the certification of the result. That seven-day window has now elapsed, but it is unclear whether Franken can be seated in Washington while Coleman’s lawsuit is pending.

In the meantime, Coleman’s case has taken a serious hit. He is seeking to have 654 rejected absentee ballots counted, even though they have twice been ruled faulty — on Election Day, and upon a second review by election officials last month. Now it looks as if they will be rejected for the third time.

Several counties have once again reviewed these ballots, and the numbers aren’t good for Coleman. Nate Silver reports that of the 151 of these ballots that the counties have reevaluated, just one has been deemed improperly rejected. For Coleman, that’s a success rate of two-thirds of one percent.

Of course, Coleman’s aim is to have the courts rule in his favor, and local officials will probably not play much of a role. But at a time when Coleman needs literally everything to go his way if he is to have a chance of overturning Franken’s victory, this isn’t a good start.

UPDATE 2:08 PM: The Minnesota Independent reports that Pawlenty has rejected Franken’s request for a signed election certificate, citing a statute indicating that election contests must be resolved before a certificate can be issued.

Basically, Republican Norm Coleman is contesting DFLer Al Franken’s election victory on three fronts. First, he says that 133 lost ballots that benefited Franken by 46 net votes should not be counted. Second, he alleges that between 130 and 150 ballots were counted twice, though he can’t be sure which candidate they helped. And third, he argues that 654 additional absentee ballots should be counted, even though they were twice rejected by election officials.

The election contest will be adjudicated by a three-judge panel to be named by NFL Hall of Famer and current Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan Page, who is believed to be a Democrat. Republicans will no doubt whine about a liberal bias in the courts — as they already have in this contest — but Page is the ranking member of the state’s high court, after Chief Justice Eric Magnuson recused himself.

Basically, this is all a “Hail Mary” on the part of the Coleman campaign, which would have to have everything go its way to stand a chance of erasing Franken’s 225-vote lead.

When will it finally end? From The Minnesota Independent:

Nobody knows. Most political observers have speculated about a roughly two-month timeframe. But legal expert Ron Rosenbaum, speaking on KFAN (1130-AM) yesterday, poured cold water on that relatively quick scenario. “I think those people are dreaming,” he told host Dan Barreiro. “This thing could easily last longer than you even want to imagine, if permitted, and I think there’s a reasonable chance that could happen.”

However, Coleman is blocking the inclusion of about a third of the absentee ballots from Franken-friendly areas, such as St. Louis County. So far, Franken’s been taking the high ground and pushing for all 1,346 ballots in question to be counted — but if the Coleman campaign keeps cherry-picking ballots, Franken might have to change his strategy.

Sixty percent of these rejected absentee ballots come from five counties whose voters have favored Franken 57 percent of the time. If all of the ballots from these counties are included, Franken stands to gain 112 net votes. But if Coleman blocks a third of them, Franken will net just 75 votes, bringing his lead to 121.

Then we come to the remaining 40 percent of the ballots, in counties where Coleman holds an approximate 56-44 advantage. If the ballots hew to the Nov. 4 trends, Coleman can expect to pick up 60 votes. That would cut Franken’s lead to 61 votes — probably a bit too close for comfort for the Franken team, especially when Coleman’s lawyers have all sorts of challenges planned. And if Coleman gets 61 percent of the votes in these counties, the race will be a virtual tie.

Mind you, these back-of-the-envelope (or, more accurately, front-of-the-vastly-overdue-electric-bill) calculations are speculative. But they do show that the moral high ground is a potentially dangerous place for Franken to be, when the low road is paved with net vote gains. If the Franken campaign is hoping to gain legitimacy and public support through its honesty, let it be forewarned that these benefits could quickly evaporate if Franken is forced to contest the election.

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your support and your patience during this long recount process.

Today I’ve got good news to report: it looks like we’re on track to win. The state canvassing board has completed its job of reviewing all the ballots – and at the end of this important step in the process, we’re ahead.[...]

We’ve got a lot of important work left to do together to get this country back on track – and with the recount process almost over, I want you to know that I’m ready to get to work on day one. For now, though, I’d like to thank you for all you’ve done, and to wish you and your family a Happy New Year. I think it’s going to be a great one.

The election is still far from decided — a complex absentee ballot situation has yet to be resolved — but Ezra notes that Franken is the overwhelming favorite at Intrade, where he is trading at 90 to Coleman’s six.