Coleman Not Ruling Out Appeals
In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio on Friday, Norm Coleman was asked what his next step would be if the election trial ends with him still behind. And he didn't rule out an appeals process, which could hold up the certification of a Franken victory even longer.
"I don't know if there is a next step," Coleman said, explaining that it's a question of whether there would still be outstanding issues such as improperly-rejected absentee ballots, double-counted absentees, and other questions.
When pressed further on whether he would appeal, Coleman responded: "If those issues are resolved, there's not much to appeal."
In plain English: Get ready for some appeals.
Meanwhile, Al Franken gave his own interview to MPR. Among other things, he commented on Coleman's decision to take a temporary consulting job with the Republican Jewish Coalition: "I think it may be a more permanent job."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
>>"I think it may be a more permanent job.">>
LOL! I certainly hope Al is right!
February 9, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, I see him working in the prison laundry or kitchen before too long.
February 9, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: If we're successful in dragging this turkey out for six years, there won't need to be an appeal.
February 9, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because there is a general acceptance of constituent need for seating a second Mn Senator; between the judges, the Mn Supreme Court, the Mn Legislature and the Us Senate- look for Franken to be seated if he prevails in the current proceedings. Fun to see how Pawlenty handles it!! Predict the Three Muskateers [judges] will move to speed things up within a week.
February 9, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Allowing the seat to remain vacant for the entire appeals process would be nothing short of criminal but when did the GOP ever show respect for the rule of law except when it behooves them to do so?
February 9, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
They will expedite the appeals process. It will be a matter of weeks, not a matter of months.
February 9, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right but so far I have seen no evidence that either the courts, Coleman or Pawlenty are in any hurry. They all know that Franken won and the only reason he hasn't been seated is as a "screw you" to Franken and the Democratic Party.
February 9, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been watching the Contest over the last two weeks at uptake.com. To say the court is allowing Coleman great leeway in their presentation is an understatement. This will probably go on for at least 4-6 months. After that, assuming Coleman loses, appeals will go on for another few months. With swiftboater Ben Ginsberg on board Team Coleman, appeals are assured.
So, Al should expect to be seated sometime in the fall.
February 9, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're right, then the MN Dems deserve to be booted out of office. They control the state houses by a 2-1 margin. They can legislate an emergency provision to have Franken seated provisionally.
If they don't have the balls to see that their state has 2 senators, they should be shot.
February 9, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point, please, to exactly where the MN legislature has any input on this process.
February 9, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see. Who do you think made the law that says "a election certificate can not be issued until all litigation is resolved"? The MN state legislature. Just like every state legislature makes the rules for its state.
The MN legislature has the authority to amend that law, just like the IL legislature had the authority to change the law so that the replacement senator would be chosen in a special election instead of appointed by the governor. (They just wimped out and didn't do it because they thought they might lose the seat.)
This is how laws get amended--when something that works well in theory is a disaster in reality.
February 9, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just checked: MN State Rep. Phyllis Kahn has introduced a bill to have Franken seated provisionally.
". . . it requires a provisional election certificate be issued to any candidate with the most votes after a recount, pending the results of an election contest. If Kahn’s bill were to become law, former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman’s DFL party challenger would immediately become the first beneficiary, even before the courts resolve Coleman’s election contest."
http://minnesotaindependent.com/25433/bill-to-seat-franken-could-put-pawlenty-in-a-pickle-kahn-says
February 9, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question is: assuming MN state legislature is set up based on Federal legislature, do both houses have the 2/3 majority to override Pawlenty's almost certain veto? I honestly don't know.
Can any Minnesotans out there give us some insight?
February 9, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A two-thirds vote of the members in each house is needed to override a veto."
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/LRL/Vetoes/Abtveto.asp
67 Senate seats (only 21 Repugs); 134 House seats (only 45 repugs).
I honestly doubt Pawlenty will veto the bill, however, because (1) he knows that the people of MN need two senators and he would get slammed for intentionally denying them representation, (2) Coleman is under federal investigation so nobody is sticking their necks out for him, (c) he would be overridden.
February 9, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the math looks good. As for your first two points, I think you're giving Pawlenty way too much credit for having logical thought. He is, after all, a Republican, and they're not well known for thinking through the consequences of their actions (that little coup the House Reps. pulled on the stimulus bill vote last week comes to mind).
I'll still put my money on (c), especially now that you've provided such encouraging numbers.
February 9, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are all the tort reform automatons? They seem to scurry away when scum of their own start abusing the legal system.
February 9, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are the tort reformers? Sick from lead paint and Salmonella.
February 9, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who doesn't think this is just the Republicans trying to keep another vote off the the stim. bill?
I bet if the bill was passed today, Coleman would drop the court case.
February 9, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting but I don't agree. This is more about the hatred for Franken and particularly for what he represents than any single piece of legislation
February 9, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that there is hatred involved. But even Coleman knows he lost. He got a job already and moved out of his senate office. He is now counting ballots that he himself has kicked out just to delay this longer.
That's why I think now it's all about delaying Franken from voting on any of the critical bills Obama promised to do the first 100 days. With one less Dem. vote, Obama has to give more to the Republicans to get that vote.
But I could also be very cynical :)
February 9, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink