I noted the article in the TPM. Coleman's case was always very weak. He had no evidence to support his allegations, and his argument that the court should order the state to count ballots that were not legal under Minnesota law was a losing argument. Requiring Coleman (or his party) to pay some of Franken's legal fees is certainly just in this case.
The Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Franken received the most votes and won the election to be the next Senator of Minnesota. The Governor has stated that he will sign the election certificate as decided by the court, so Franken should be seated. For those of us that have watched this case with some interest, there was not much merit to Coleman's case. Arguing to the court that they should direct counties to count ballots in direct violation of Minnesota law is a real non-starter. That argument, and the problem that they had no evidence to support their allegations made this case almost absurd.
Had this been a normal civil case, the plaintiff would have likely been thrown out on a summary judgment. Minnesota should be proud that the system worked - it was slow but it worked. The system for challenging election results needs to be revised to allow a speeder process, but Minnesota was a shining example of how fair elections are in this country. This example is especially important when compared with the travesty we saw in Iran where there were several million more votes than voters
Coleman's attorneys are clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel for votes. They are now apparently arguing the a person who was living in the jail of a county, that was not his home county should have his vote counted. I am not a fan of Norm Coleman, but I think that if the situation were reversed, I would want Franken to concede so the state would have it's two senators.
Coleman's team has already argued that two forged ballots should be counted. Altered evidence, and they were caught, and they want the prisoner vote. In another developement Coleman might have picked up three votes in an unusual situation.
Meanwhile, Franken is asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to order a temporary certification pending the outcome of the case, so that Minnesota will have a senator. If Franken was not leading I think this would be an easy call - No. But since he is leading, the argument makes sense. I am not sure that the law contemplates such a thing, and I am not aware of this happening before.Another view of the case is here.
Is the Franken case asking the court to make a poliyical decision? I can't imagine that the legislature ever thought this would happen, so there is no clear direction for the court.
And unfortunately it will go on for awhile.
Minnesota is about to get a senator elected, and now the question is whether the losing candidate will try to get the court to overturn the election. Franken is the favorite at this point since he leads by 224 or 225, depending on which report you read, and this lead will be almost impossible to overcome.
In a very unusual move the Minnesota Supreme Court asked that certain information be filed last Saturday (January 3rd) for a probable hearing - at some point. The issue is whether certain absentee ballots should be counted. The Supremes earlier ordered that all the absentee ballots identified by the candidates as wrongfully rejected (and they were wrongfully rejected and not counted) should be counted so long as both sides agreed.
This is a strange ruling because, while most of the the absentee ballots were counted pursuant to agreement between the two camps, some were not accepted by one party or the other. It is a mystery why the court put interested parties into the position of deciding which ballots can be counted. The other problem, as I understand it, is that some uncounted absentee ballots were never identified by either party prior to a deadline established by the court. Those ballots were never counted (although some were probably correctly rejected.)
Finally, there is the allegation of double counting. This allegation appears at this point to be based upon assumptions and wishful think instead of proof.
In Minnesota there are only four valid reasons to reject an absentee ballot: the voter is not registered, the ballot is late (past the deadline,) voter fails to sign the ballot, and the witness is not registered as a voter. Some of the ballots were rejected because a county official forgot to sign the ballot envelope when it was received, but that is not a valid reason to reject the vote.
Coleman is reportedly threatening to bring legal action if Franken is certified as the winner - which may happen as early as today. The Governor reportedly will not certify until all legal challenges are resolved, so this could drag out for awhile.
it would be nice if the losing candidate, after the recount and after certification by the election board, would concede - that would be a class act. It isn't good for the election process to be fought out in the courts after the votes are counted. Minnesota has a very good election process, and after the recount, the citizens can be confident that the party that won will be the next senator.
UPDATE: COLEMAN LOSES IN COURT.
We had some elections in Minnesota yesterday. I have previously posted about one Jill Clark who was running for a seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court. She filed an action and tried to get the sitting justice removed from the ballot, or in the alternative she wanted the court to direct that the "incumbent" designation be deleted from sitting justice's name. Ms. Clark lost all of her court challenges, and now she has come in third in the election. In Minnesota, the top two vote getters for judicial elections are placed on the ballot in November. Alas, Ms. Clark will not be one of them.
Minnesota Supreme Court issued its opinion to deny candidate Clark's motion to have a sitting Minnesota Supreme Court Judge removed from the ballot. This is a continuation of an earlier post.
In Minnesota, when a judicial vacancy occurs, the Governor appoints a person to the position until the next election when a successor can be elected. This happened in the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Governor appointed a well-qualified jurist, Lorie Gilda. The position is now up for election.
Clark apparently thinks that the best election strategy is to try to get the current justice disqualified. So, as lawyers do, she sued. Clark filed her case directly with the Minnesota Supreme Court and argued that Lorie Gilda is disqualified to run for the seat because she can’t succeed herself. To be kind, this argument is at best a very tortured reading of the statute. Next she argued that Lorie Gilda, the judge currently in the position, could not be designated as the “Incumbent.” Not surprisingly, when the case was filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court, all of the sitting justices had conflicts, so a panel of retired Minnesota Supreme Court justices was appointed to hear the case and make a decision.
I think Clark does have one interesting point: Sitting judges are a virtual lock for re-election, so the appointment of a judge to a judgeship effectively eliminates open judicial elections. While this argument may have some merit, it is a question for the legislature, not the courts.
The Minnesota Lawyer is following this story closely and has good updates. I’m sure there will more to this story.
Enter keywords:
