We don't often think about the Secretary of State office of a given state to be that important or powerful.  Yet the Secretary of State usually oversees elections in the state, a duty which carries great responsibility.

If laws are obeyed clearly and uniformly, still, the Secretary of State's job means little power and political influence.  But with examples of election monkey-business and manipulation going all the way back to the hanging and dimpled-chads of 2000 and beyond, it quickly becomes apparent that a strong hand is needed from the SOS office to ensure those election laws are obeyed.

And so it is somewhat disturbing to learn from CNS News that there is a liberal 527 group called the Secretary of State Project which is targeting state Secretary of State offices for Democrat takeover. 

Liberals are still fuming even eight years later that they were not allowed to steal the 2000 election with their "dimpled chad" interpretations of votes for Al Gore, and we largely have Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and the U.S. Supreme Court to thank for finally ending their outrageous efforts to manufacture an Al Gore victory.

But what has happened in the 2008 election in Minnesota?  The senate race between incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman and Democrat comedian Al Franken finished too close to call and recount territory.

Again, as long as election laws are followed and enforced uniformly, there is little to worry about.  Unfortunately, in the liberal enclave that is Minnesota, as the Wall Street Journal points out, we have seen far too much funny business in this recount.

Coleman came out of the election with a 215 vote lead, and in most cases a recount will increase the margin of the leading candidate; no guarantees, but usually.  But thanks to several interesting developments, that lead managed to switch, in about the same numbers, to Franken.

A lot of ballot changes ended up going Franken's way, some would say an inordinate number.  Hmmm.

Also, if a ballot becomes damaged during counting, a duplicate is required to be made and marked "Duplicate."  Only it looks like many of these weren't marked "Duplicate," and now more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. Interestingly, these irregularities run in Franken's favor. 

Another precinct "lost" 133 votes.  In other words, a hand recount found 133 fewer votes than were recorded on election night.  There is no proof that any votes were actually lost; evidence seems to indicate that officials may have run some of the ballots through twice accidentally on election night.  But rather than go with the more accurate hand recount number, officials are going with the election night count (which can't account for 133 ballots)...giving Franken an extra 46 votes. 

But a precinct in a different county went a different way.  They, too, had a disparity between election night totals and a hand recount, this time resulting in 177 ballots that weren't recorded on election night.  But this time, the board went with the new total...giving Franken an extra 37 votes.

Absentee ballots are being recounted, but not all of them are getting counted.  Counties that went heavily Franken have sent in their absentee ballots to be recorded...but it seems Coleman-dominated counties are dragging their feet.  Chalk up another 176 votes for Franken.

Then there was the interesting manner in which some of the votes were "interpreted."  It seems some voters filled in the oval on the ballot, only to put an X through it sometimes.  In many cases, iif the X was through a Coleman-filled oval, the X meant "the voter changed their mind and didn't want to vote for Coleman;" if the X was through a filled-in Franken oval, it meant "the voter wanted to emphasize their desire to vote for Franken by filling in the oval and marking it with an X."

It almost seemed that in liberal-controlled Minnesota, the standard operating procedure for determining which vote counts to accept and which ones to reject hinged on one question: does it benefit Franken?

All election officials have a responsibility to follow the law and ensure it is applied consistently.  But even if they fail in this duty, there are other officials who are charged with "being the grownup" and ensuring others do their job.  That official is primarily the Secretary of State.

But what are the people to do when they can't be sure any grownups are in charge?

Thus it becomes even more disturbing that liberals are elevating the Secretary of State's office to a level of hyper-partisanship.  Is it payback for not being allowed to steal the 2000 presidential election?  Is it just a natural evolution in a highly partisan political atmosphere?

Either way, it looks like the liberals are winning.  According to CNS News:

The SoS Project says it spent a total of $500,000 in seven swing states in 2006 trying to get Democrats elected as secretaries of state. They achieved victories in all but two of those states--Michigan and Colorado--but helped fund Democratic wins in Ohio, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico.

In 2008, the group had a clean sweep in its targeted states, spending $280,000 to help elect Democrats in Montana, West Virginia, Oregon and Missouri, according to the watchdog group Center for Public Integrity.

It has become very apparent that the voters can no longer afford their accustomed state of apathy and lack of vigilance.  That is, if they still have any desire to live in a free and just society. 

The people cannot cast a haphazard vote for officials of questionable character, then expect those officials to obey the law and safeguard the public trust--including the people's freedom. 

The people must identify and support candidates of good moral character--and send packing those candidates who don't measure up.  And once these candidates are elected, the people must continue to watch them and their actions to keep them honest.

After all, if you won't look after the welfare of your own freedom, who will?