"We are in the process of reviewing the letter," says Errol Cockfield, press secretary to Gov. Paterson, about Republican candidate Jim Tedisco's request to add 15 days for military and other overseas absentee ballots to be received in the 20th Congressional District. Ryan Rudominer, spokesman for Democratic candidate Scott Murphy, did not have any immediate comment, and my message left at the state Board of Elections has not yet been returned.
Earlier this afternoon, I hung out with about 25 other people in a room at the Saratoga County Board of Elections where absentee ballots were being gone over at two separate locations. It was a mostly genial atmosphere, although the objection of Republican lawyer Bob Farley regarding votes from a nursing home in Saratoga Springs raised some Democratic ire. As I understood it, Farley was questioning whether absentee ballot applications might have been filled out by a nursing home employee after they were signed by the applicant, which would be improper. He said the employee would need to be contacted to establish whether that was or was not the case.
Saratoga County is not releasing absentee figures yet, but as the county where Tedisco did best in the Election Day vote it is expected to help him now, possibly overcoming Murphy's slim lead elsewhere. Tedisco told me this afternoon his figures show him up about 90 votes overall, but I have no way of checking that. The conventional wisdom is that the military absentees are likely to break for the Republican. He may need them to win.
What I don't understand about this whole thing is this. This is not the first election, or even the first special election, in American history held with troops in combat zones. This is not the first election to have a razor thin margin. So why is this issue of votes from combat zones suddenly an issue? What is different about this time?
No snark from the partisan peanut gallery, please. This is a serious question.
Posted by: Brian | April 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM
A commenter to my own blog wondered... If Tedisco had his way, the March 30 deadline for ballots to be postmarked would not be changed. So essentially what he's saying is that two weeks is sufficient time for absentee ballots to arrive TO combat zones but not sufficient for them to arrive FROM the same combat zones.
Bob, when you talk to his people, perhaps you can ask them to comment on it.
Posted by: Brian | April 14, 2009 at 11:15 AM
I find it interesting, but not entirely convincing, that Tedisco's "team" is assuming the military ballots will break heavily in their favor. As I recall, nationally Obama was competitive with McCain or even did better among military voters. In this district, it may be the case that Tedisco might gain a small advantage among these voters, but I doubt it will be as decisive as his team seems to imagine.
Posted by: Hudson | April 14, 2009 at 11:30 PM
TypePad
I don't think Obama carried the military vote.
Posted by: Bob Conner | April 15, 2009 at 09:10 AM
TypePad
Brian: You raise good questions. Here are the best answers I have from the top of my head. As a practical matter, these issues are never seriously considered except in the context of very close elections, when they may become decisive. I think there are obvious flaws in the current system that should be addressed legislatively, but as for the context of this campaign: It may be that some soldiers overseas did not get their ballots in time, in which case they are disenfranchised. But it's also likely that mail service is erratic and inconsistent for front-line soldiers in the Hindu Kush, and that some may have gotten their ballots in time but may need more than two weeks to get them back.
Posted by: Bob Conner | April 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Like I said, Tedisco might gain a *small* advantage among these voters, but I doubt it will be much.
Note also, if donations are any measure of support:
"According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul."
Posted by: Hudson | April 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM
1. 100%, thats right, 100% of the military ballots opened so far are for Jim Tedisco.
2. Why isn't Kirsten raising a stinkfest about her military being disenfranchised from the lack of postal immediacy? The answer is, refer to point #1.
3. For a US Senator to expect and demand special privileges is upsetting - to say the least. Kirsten, I voted for you because I thought you were one of us.
4. Finally, if a US Senator with all her peeps can't get it right, how do the rest of us schmucks have a chance?
CHANGE NYS BOE LAWS!!!!
Posted by: ind_voter | April 15, 2009 at 05:14 PM