After Rough Week, Coleman Camp Straightening Up In Legal Fight
Today's courtroom proceedings in the Minnesota election trial ended a little while ago, and looking back on the day something is becoming clear: After a week of one comedic misstep after another, the Coleman legal team seems to have finally gotten its act together and managed to score some points -- and take some interesting risks, too.
While examining Ramsey County (St. Paul) elections director Joe Mansky this morning, Coleman attorney John Rock was able to secure an expert opinion that the most likely reason for some of the voting discrepancies that Coleman has complained about is that a number of absentee ballots were accidentally counted twice, thanks to a duplication process for damaged ballots and a failure to label them properly.
The Coleman camp has maintained that Franken has netted about 110 votes out of this process, using about two-dozen specifically picked Democratic precincts. Winning this claim would cut Franken's 225-vote lead in half -- though the Franken camp's legal filings have also shown they could play this game, too, and subtract a net 34 votes for Coleman. But obviously this is not a place the Franken camp wants to go.
The Franken camp will have the opportunity on Monday to cross-examine Mansky, at which time they will be exploring alternative explanations and the difficulties in calculating this stuff.
Now, let's take a look at the calculated risk they also took.
The Coleman team stated this afternoon that they're not objecting to an intervention brought by over 60 rejected absentee voters, who are believed to be almost entirely Franken-backers, and will support counting those votes.
"We think all these votes should be counted," said Coleman lawyer James Langdon, "and we think all the rejected absentee ballots throughout the state that are just like these should be counted as well."
Now remember: Coleman is currently trying to get his own stack of rejected envelopes, numbering 4,500 to 5,000 out of the total 11,000 outstanding ballots, put in the count.
In short, the Coleman camp is wagering that if they make a gesture of good faith by letting in this batch of Franken votes, they can leverage it and use it as a precedent for their own cherry-picked ballots, and potentially pull ahead against Franken's other selected voters.
At his press conference during today's lunch hour, Norm Coleman was asked about the fact that he wouldn't even know about his rejected voters if not for Franken's earlier activism on the subject. "Listen," Coleman said, "there's a lot of irony in this process."
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
I like it better when Coleman has a bad day. Sucky timing for Franken's camp that Coleman scored his first points right before the weekend, so the Judges head off to the weekend with that on their minds.
January 30, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has me a bit worried....need someone to talk me down. Also if coleman has 5k ballots in hand cant franken do the same thing?
January 30, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's highly unlike that Coleman would ever be able to get all 5,000. For example, one of them is Douglas Thompson.
I expect this court to open up any new ballots in an even-handed manner — if they declare a certain error now forgiven and worthy of counting for Coleman, they'll do the same for Franken and vice-versa.
And this is where we get into Coleman's real problem. If the forgiven errors amount to a random sample of all absentees, and are allowed in using an impartial process that is open to both campaigns, then Franken's lead would only expand because he won the absentees by around 10 points.
January 30, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know most of the details or the specific laws, but the biggest problem is that Coleman's entire argument, so far, is that there MIGHT HAVE BEEN mistakes. He's the petitioner and he has the burden of proof, so "might have been" isn't enough. He has to prove at least that mistakes PROBABLY occurred. Technically, "probably" means just more than 50%, but in reality, when the courts are asked to intervene in politics (usually), they do so hesitantly and only in clear cases.
Compare to the 5th pile ballots. It was quite clear that the vast majority were valid, and were initially not counted due to misapplications of the law, so it was an easy call for the courts to ultimately agree that unambiguous errors should be corrected.
Here, Coleman is asking the court to second guess the entire process on speculation. That's a weak position in any case, and especially one asking the courts to affect elections.
January 30, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr.E., there is no issue of "probable mistakes" in this case. The court will determine (by whatever standard and processes it chooses) which absentee ballots are to be counted and which absentee ballots are to be excluded from the count. The court will also determine whether - in the court's judgment - any ballots were double counted, and if so, it will make the appropriate deductions from each side. The court will finally determine which candidate had the greater total number of votes.
The candidate whose total is lesser can then seek to have the Senate modify the count, in the Senate's exercise of its prerogative to determine the persons entitled to sit as members.
January 30, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sure about that last part?
I know the Senate has certain powers in this area, but they are limited, and, I don't think they get to modify the vote count... do they? That seems pretty crazy if true.
January 30, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OR, is he asking the court to agree that ballots weren't being processed equally, which under the law could either a) void the recount proces, or b) the whole election? I doubt he can win that argument; as you said, judges really don't want to have to intervene, so Coleman's case has to be exceptionally compelling, which so far, it is not.
January 30, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is winning even the point of this exercise? Seems to me it has more to do with deliberate delay to keep a Democratic vote on the sidelines. Courts shouldn't become political tools to game the system.
January 30, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The judges rounded up all the absentee ballots, so they must plan to review and rule on them. To rule on them they must look at the ballots individually.
The only thing left for Franken to do is find as many probable Franken ballots that were mistakenly tossed as possible. He'll have to outmatch Coleman. Were Republican area local election officials more likely to unfairly toss out absentee ballots than Democratic election officials? It might all turn on that question.
January 30, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did they round up ALL the absentee ballots, or just those the candidates agreed on.
I always thought it was weird that the candidates were supposed to agree on which absentee ballots could be re-examined. The rest of the process has been so meticulous, couldn't they just look at all rejected absentee ballots, too?
January 31, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't somebody in the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C. or St. Paul just indict Norm Coleman for all those apparently undisclosed gifts and sweetheart deals he received from political sugar daddies, and put an end to this farce? Coleman's excruciating slow political demise puts Greta Garbo's death scene in Camille to shame.
January 30, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US Senate is now in session. MN has only one Senator sitting there as of now. I could've sworn that at the beginning of this Congress they were to determine whom they would seat. Us Dems have a 58-seat majority already, and surely such a vote is non-filibusterable (to coin a term). So why oh why has "our" Senate not gone ahead and voted to seat Franken? Why is it waiting out interminable MN court battles? The Senate possesses the power to seat whom they will, and a state court has no power to gainsay them. Hence, I refer to you to the above question.
January 30, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
They may not want to set a precedent, but I don't know why not, since repubs do what they want regardless of its legality, and don't pay attention when people object. Subpoenas? Just don't respond. We are operating on an entirely different set of rules.
January 30, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the answer to that is fairly obvious. Dems think that they're going to win this. They don't need to create a political "fairness" issue for nothing by having the Senate arrogate unto itself what would otherwise be judicial prudence.
They can afford to wait for a "clean" victory; if they can't dominate the Senate with 58 votes plus Biden as a tie-breaker, that's pretty sad.
Also, sure, Republicans can start caterwauling anyway that this was somehow stolen from them, but then Dems can go on the airwaves ramming it down their throats: Coleman denied Minnesotans Senatorial representation for however many weeks while he launched mutually contradictory challenges. They showed him the patience of Job, but no matter how many new arguments he came up with, he still lost. So the elections were no good, and also the courts are no good; the only thing that can be good is if Coleman somehow is handed a Senate seat that he plainly lost.
January 31, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Admittedly, I have not been following this that closely, but isn't the point of all this for Coleman to get a recount of absentee ballots? I am not sure that the Court has the authority to "count" any ballots, so Coleman doesn't care who the "disenfranchised" voters voted for, he just wants the absentee ballots recounted, hence there goose and gander argument.
It seems to me that Coleman's strategy is to get just the absentee ballots recounted or the original set of rejected absentee ballots recounted, hoping to net enough votes to take the lead. A couple of days ago, everyone was dumping on his lawyers, but obviously they did have a strategy, albeit with some imperfect witnesses. They are trying to put on enough evidence to convince the Court that there was an irregularity in the count, at least come voters were disenfranchised, and the error was not harmless to Coleman.
January 31, 2009 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
i love it. coleman is literally getting laughed our of court. just like Billo got literally laughed out of court when he tried to sue Franken.
but what really gets me laughing is Norm's new job at the republican jewish coalition (rjc) they are simply another name for AIPAC.
when a normal person gets in trouble or needs something sleazy done, they call a jewish lawyer. nobody else can get the job done as well.
when a bunch of jewish lawyers need something sleazy done, they call norm coleman. their faith in norm is unfounded as far as i can tell.
January 31, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
when a normal person gets in trouble
Where to begin?
It would appear that the "normal" person as opposed to a or "jewish person" or, possibly, "non-jewish lawyer", (the distinction is unclear) who has gotten "in trouble"--presumably correctly accused--knows where to go for a lawyer to produce an unjust acquittal.
I guess the goyish lawyers only take on guys who are innocent. That said, they are losing an awful lot of jury trials and sending innocent clients off to the joint, but at least they are certified non-sleazy.
I gather that ojim will be shopping for his next attorney at a Schul in Borough Park.
January 31, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please remove ojm's antisemitic comment:
"when a normal person gets in trouble or needs something sleazy done, they call a jewish lawyer. nobody else can get the job done as well."
January 31, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remove the comment? Unless someone says something that is inciting a crime, or is truly hateful (this is just a bigoted stereotype and very foolish), do we really have to remove the offending comment?
I think that is going overboard. I have read much worse comments here; some that offended women, blacks, immigrants, obese people, less intelligent people, and others -- I don't like any of them, but my eyes are fine, and my brain allows me to consider the source. I personally have been called a moron, a dope, and "sweetie," among other things that I didn't like. Removal? We're all adults here, I hope.
January 31, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please see following from TPM's Terms of Use:
"You agree not to ... upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available ("Post") any Content that is ... hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable..."
February 1, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second that. The comment offers nothing of value, except to expose ojim's bigotry, and that has now been noted.
January 31, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if or how this process is different, but it use to be that the only way turn over an election was to show proof of discrepancies totaling 10 times the winners win margin. That would mean that Coleman would have to show over 2200 errors in the votes.
January 31, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow. so now i am a bigot. really?
OK. let me see if i get this straight.... the RJC is NOT sleazy? they are NOT jewish? last i checked, they are both of those, and by choice i might add.
more than a few republican congressmen take their orders from Tel Aviv. not from the constituents who elected them. that is blatantly sleazy if you ask me.
as a lutheran, i really dont mind if you say what you like about my religion of choice. i am a big boy and i can take it. some of the rest of you on the other hand......
January 31, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress in its near entirety takes its orders from Tel Aviv, but AIPAC's outragous influence on the hill ought not be used to make blanket statements about Jews.
For my part though, I most begrudge you the misuse of "literally": "coleman is literally getting laughed our of court" Really? The laughing in the courtroom is actually driving Norm Coleman away? I hope there's TV footage.
January 31, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That term drives me crazy too. People don't understand the difference between saying "literally" and "figuratively." If Coleman gets LITERALLY laughed out of court, I want to see the joke that Franken tells to get it to happen!
(Not that I don't think Franken is capable of it; he can be hilarious -- but Coleman is the joke here. No one is actually laughing though)
January 31, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd hate Joe Biden.
"To see that happen to women, it literally saddens me."
February 1, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kamatsu,
It may be unfortunate that Biden employs the overused (in my opinion) word "literally;" nevertheless, he uses the word properly here. So, your point is...?
February 1, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Joe Biden very much. And if he said, "It figuratively saddens me," I would wonder what in the world he meant. What is wrong with his sentence? It seems to me an appropriate use of the term.
February 1, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was the reference to the Jewish lawyer that you said people seek out when wanting to get away with a crime that ruffled feathers.
I guess it would have been okay to say that when you want to get away with a crime, who do you ask to help you? A lawyer. You took it one degree too far. There are even Baptist lawyers, and they are just as unscrupulous as the others.
January 31, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
when you want to get away with a crime, who do you ask to help you? A lawyer.
And when you are wrongly accused of a crime, you call Ghostbusters?
February 4, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"just like Billo got literally laughed out of court when he tried to sue Franken" see below.
CVille Dem: "People don't understand the difference between saying "literally" and "figuratively." If Coleman gets LITERALLY laughed out of court, I want to see the joke that Franken tells to get it to happen!"
do your homework (like i do) and check wikipedia for "Fox v Franken" see quote below.
"On August 22, U.S. District Court judge Denny Chin heard arguments from attorneys representing the plaintiff and the defendant regarding Fox News's request for an injunction to prevent Franken from releasing the book with its current title. In a hearing punctuated at times by laughter from the assembled spectators"
January 31, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
or you might also check
Saulny, Susan (August 23, 2003). "In Courtroom, Laughter at Fox and a Victory for Al Franken". The New York Times.
January 31, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I second that. The comment offers nothing of value, except to expose ojim's bigotry, and that has now been noted."
Labeling someone a bigot based on one statement seems prejudice also. People sometimes misspeak, but that doesn't automatically define them as a bigot. We all have to search for stereotype in our opinions and statements. Perhaps it's more tolerant to decree the statement as bigotry, rather than the person.
February 1, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Literally" is an example of a contronym, i.e. a word that takes on its opposite meaning. This is common in English. See, for example, "dust" which means both to deposit fine particles as in "dust the crops," and to remove fine particles as in "dust the furniture."
February 1, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
there is nothing wrong with being a bigot. we are all bigots. bigotry is defined as:
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
i happen to be a political bigot. i have no problem giving those who work against my best interests the back of my hand.
if you would search the TPM terms of service and you will find nary a mention of bigotry in any of its forms. see below.
"that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, false or inaccurate, invasive of anothers privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;" (i personally love the Tortious part)
as is usual on the internet these days, if you criticize the jews, they automatically want to label you as a racist. as if "semite" means "jew". as bad as their actions are, that is the only defense they have. unfortunately, "jew" is not a race. it is a religion. i can convert to another religion. i cannot convert to being Korean, or Native American.
and does anybody disagree that the RJC is made up of sleazy jewish lawyers? anybody?
February 1, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
With each post you further reveal your sick mind and hateful heart. You preface your latest argument with: "As is usual on the internet these days, if you criticize the jews..." Well there you have it. Not a particular Jew, not a particular Jewish group, but "the Jews."
The irony is that you even care who wins in MN because by your logic either one will be an agent of Israel. No doubt that's where Josh Marshall and Eric Kleefeld get their marching orders from as well.
February 1, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"With each post you further reveal your sick mind and hateful heart."
dont feel so special. i went and burned a question mark in the lawn of an agnostic last week.
why dont you start decrying those who are critical of your policies as "the Lutherans"? it would be interesting to see if we really cared enough to object. i looked on the internet for the Lutheran anti-defamation league, i could not find one. i wonder why that is?
a little history for you:
israel was started as a religious homeland from the outset. as such, there is no separation of church and state. as one of 'gods chosen people'
(snark) your religion IS your politics and your policy for that matter.
as such, your policies are currently being decried by every human rights group in the free world. amazing coincidence, no?
or are the human rights groups just as hateful as i am?
February 1, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, as messy and disruptive and awful as this whole thing is, I actually kind of love it.
Coleman's behavior is the last eight years or so reduced to its bare essence: hypocrisy, petulance, entitlement, and craven contempt and disrespect for pesky things like facts or laws.
I mean, really: "It's okay to break the law if it gets me what I want." Sound familiar?
What I really love is watching this mindset come up against the cold, hard reality of the law and the courts. I love seeing Coleman get told "no, that doesn't fly" over and over and over again. And I love, love, love how desperate and ridiculous and transparently shameless Coleman's getting. He's not even trying to hide it anymore.
And after every hissy fit, the court's like, "Finished? All right, then. Let's get down to business...no, we're not just going to give you the election. Not even if you stand before the bench and hold your breath until your face turns blue."
I love it. Just love it. Flailing, naked presumption meets meets reality, and is absolutely flummoxed when reality doesn't just roll over and give in. More, please.
Mad, mad props to the MN courts, by the way. You've been fantastic, you really have. Kind of like the Supernanny to Norm's bratty toddler.
February 1, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Coleman's behavior for the last eight years or so . . ."
Let's make that: "Coleman's behavior for the last fifty-eight years or so . . ."
February 1, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
have you seen that high school yearbook photo of norm? wow. he looked just like the greasy repulsive thug he turned out to be.
February 1, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink