Accusations And Recriminations Fly In Arguments On Coleman Motion
The Minnesota election court just heard arguments on Norm Coleman's motion to declare illegal ballots that he had previously agreed were legal, and boy was it tense.
The Coleman camp sent up James Langdon, the member of the team who has best come across as sympathetic and sincere. "We understand that we stipulated, and we take that very seriously," Langdon said. "However, our research told us we could not stipulate to make something legal that was in fact illegal."
The claim here is that the court has ruled that only strict standards will be applied in letting in any new ballots. But some of those 933 previously-rejected ballots that were counted on January 3 wouldn't pass this test. Therefore, the Coleman camp says, these ballots must be culled, tying the ballot itself to the original envelope for potential un-counting.
Langdon went even further and said that the Coleman campaign has filed a motion to apply the court's standards to all absentee ballots that have already been counted -- that is, the absentees from Election Night.
This contains an obvious problem: All those previous absentees were de-coupled from their envelopes on Election Night.
So the Coleman camp is now attempting to create a legal trap for the court: Undo the February 13th ruling and let in all those votes we want, or we will insist that the result is illegal.
And really, even if those other voters are let in, the Coleman camp might turn around and still insist that the whole count is illegal.
The Franken camp sent up David Lillehaug -- whose distinction among the Franken team is how effectively he does anger.
Lillehaug tore into Langdon's "however" clause: "There is no 'however' with stipulations of this sort."
"The parties -- at least one party -- worked in good faith to reach this stipulation," he later said. Moreover, he added, both parties had told the court that they had worked together, had agreed that these ballots were legal, and dismissed any and all claims related to them with prejudice.
Lillehaug declared that in any court, you can't scrap a settlement you entered into: "It doesn't matter whether you're in small claims court, or conciliation -- or whether you're a former United States Senator."
"I think I know what's going on here, and I'm not gonna say very much about it," said Lillehaug. "But this is the next step in an attack on the integrity of Minnesota's election system, and a step in attacking the legitimacy of this proceeding."
Langdon got up again to take questions, and defended his honor: "I want this court to know that this stipulation was entered into in the utmost good faith, and that this motion was brought in the utmost good faith as well. I resent Mr. Lillehaug's implications, they are not true."
Finally, responding to Judge Kurt Marben, Langdon said that the Coleman camp really believe that the ballots should all be counted -- but their position is now that the court's strict standard should be applied retroactively, across all absentees.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Calvinball, pure and simple.
February 20, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colemanball?
February 20, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only rule is that you can't use the same argument twice.
February 20, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, any read from the judges' questions or comments of how they see things? Did someone start down from the bench to kick Langdon's butt, only to be restrained by his peers?
February 20, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also any idea when the judges will rule?
February 20, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most Minnesota people would like to know is how much is Coleman costing taxpayers as this keeps dragging on? Surely there is something more important that these judges should be doing. End this already!
February 20, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Colemaniks seem to be baiting the Court to make some kind of error that will result in a favorable appeal result. Don't pop the silver bullet out of the chamber and put in standard. Calmly continue to aim, and put the bullet where it needs to be in order to kill the Coleman werewolf.
February 20, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The court tipped their hat how they will probably rule when they threw out the last batch of ballots last Friday and refused to reconsider their ruling: The court said they were going to apply the rules of law. Following that logic, a matter that is stipulated to becomes the law of the case. The judges can properly say that the stipulation precludes this argument from being made, and if the argument can't be made, then the courts won't consider it.
While it is true that there are some issues that must always be considered, regardless of prior rulings or stipulations, I don't think this is one of them. Furthermore, since it is very clear to all that Coleman plans on appealing when he loses, then he can address this argument then.
The court's pattern was to initially grant Coleman great latitude, but then continue to rein him in with each subsequent ruling. As their patience wanes, they are going to continue to limit him, and not re-open investigation of ballots already considered.
February 20, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Court's recent formal restriction on ballots was NOT to allow some ballots to be opened and counted, but to set clear standards on what EVIDENCE may be brought before the court as a matter of expediting the proceedings.
If so, Coleman's argument (to go back and apply the standards to work done already) is nonsensical, aberrant. But maybe I'm missing something here since it seems Franken didn't point this out.
February 20, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus. What a sanctionably disengenious attempt to pull a "gotcha!" on the court (which, if anyone has ever succeeded in doing without getting their ass handed to them, I've never heard of it.)
When you make a stipulation, you do so at the risk that it was based upon an understanding of the law, or of how the court is likely to rule on a questionable point of law, that is incorrect. If you stipulate to the admissibility of a document A, you can't come back later and say, "well gee judge, that I did stipulate to the admissibility of A, but that was before I knew you would sustain my objection to document B which was kinda sorta similar, so now I want to take the stipulation back."
And, "However, our research told us we could not stipulate to make something legal that was in fact illegal." Are you kidding me? They're acting like they were just doing some innocent research and, ohmigod!, by pure serendipity discovered to their horror and surprise that their stipulation was in error when, in fact it was the exact opposite: some associate was specifically tasked to do research to find something, anything, that would at least arguably give them a basis for contending that this ridiculous argument passes the Rule 11 smell test.
February 20, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Rehnquist wouldn't have seen it that way if the fortunes of a Republican candidate were at stake, and neither would/will Scalia, but you are obviously right on.
February 21, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Equal protection claim to the federal courts, here we come. Coleman must be hoping for a partisan ruling in his favor if he can just provide a shred of an excuse. Yes, it would be correct to guess I don't trust the conservatives on the US supreme court. Though I'm sure Coleman would settle for a new election, I think he just wants the recount thrown out, not the whole election, which means the election night result would stand.
I sometimes see conservatives denouncing the whole concept of recounts. They want election night results to stand errors and all. Of course, they used to say tough luck when a voter was disenfranchised, provided the Republican won.
February 21, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has sort of a video game quality to it. When the Coleman's chance of winning dies, they just restart the game, going back as far into the proceedings as they can to see if they can puzzle a way out that ends with them winning. I'm wondering if this will end with the Minnesota Republican party seceding from the union. I hope they let us have our democracy back when they're done with it.
February 21, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about winning. It's about delay. It's about the national party depriving the people of Minnesota of a senate seat. That should be getting more notice. Norm has no money. Norm is a tool. The folks using him don't give a damn about Minnesota, democracy or justice. They want power and they want to deprive the Obama administration and the Democratic majority of the power they need to govern this country.
But what can you do when journalism has been reduced to having the NBC Nightly News anchor promoting that CNBC shill as a "populist".
It's all sound and fury now - none of it in the interest of the common good.
February 21, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
sleazy norm, very sleazy. read his bio and prepare to be shocked, shocked i say.
February 21, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
When are the voters of Minnesota going to get angry over this and demand that it be drawn to a close?
This is absurd.
I think MichaelA probably is correct: Franken isn't going to be seated until at least April.
February 21, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink