Franken Lawyers Call For Sanctions Against Coleman's Legal Team
Norm Coleman's legal filing from this morning, calling for the throwing-out of ballots he previously agreed were legal, really has the Franken camp angry. The new Franken filing in response doesn't just call for the Coleman lawyers' request to be denied, but goes further: "Contestants' effort to renege on the stipulation they freely entered and eviscerate the binding order of this Court warrants the imposition of sanctions." (Emphasis ours.)
The case here from the Franken camp is that the 933 absentee ballots in question should never have been numbered in the first place, as it violates the secret ballot -- they objected to it when the Coleman camp demanded it, but the Secretary of State's office did it, anyway. Thus, they said, they entered into a careful negotiation with the Coleman camp to stipulate that the ballots were all legal, and that the numbers would be blacked out. Now Coleman has declared the agreement null and void.
"As the Court is well aware, the February 3 Stipulation and Order was the product of lengthy negotiations between the parties," the filing said. "One key purpose of the Stipulation and Order was to settle a claim in litigation. Settlement agreements -- especially those turned into orders -- are highly favored by the courts."
In its call for sanctions, the Franken team also brings up how the Coleman camp has taken to the habit of openly attacking the court:
Finally, the public has a strong interest in maintaining its confidence in the judiciary. Contestants' latest strategy is to attack the legitimacy of Minnesota's electoral system and the decisions of this Court. Until now, that strategy has been pursued outside the courtroom through the voice of a spokesperson. Now, the strategy has entered the courtroom, through this motion.
The Franken camp hasn't specified what form sanctions should take, but has asked for a hearing to be scheduled so that they can argue the proposition. If the court were to grant that hearing, it would really be must-see TV.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
The erosion of respect that has been generated by the Right is corrosive to society as a whole. When we insult the institutions created by the people, to which we demand people concede rather then battle, we will be left with nothing but a battle. Anarchy is no society at all. There should be a reckoning, especially if the Coleman attorneys expect to rely on the courts to champion their cause. This is not to say the court will support Coleman, but only to undercore the contradiction that these people are seeking the courts aid while denigrating its legitimacy. Reprehensible comes to mind by way of description.
February 20, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to the Franken campaign for an aggressive response. The court is likely to ignore the call for sanctions, but it will play well in the square of public opinion, and that is no doubt what they intended.
February 20, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
At what point can a court say "enough" and conclude the proceedings? Or can they ever do it? This is beyond ridiculous. Good job, Eric, of keeping up with all the twists and turns.
February 20, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Self Realization
by Norm Coleman
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I'm a schizophrenic
And so am I
February 20, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic reply, but schitzophrenia is not multiple personality disorder, but rather a set of difficulties with reality perception (within a single persona). Not as much fun as making fun of Coleman, though.
February 20, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doggone it ... I was so close!
February 20, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
After a fairly mellow day yesterday among the lawyers in Court, the tone certainly did change today. Big-name attornies sounding angry and making pettifogging points. I guess this Coleman move helps to explain it. The jugdes also are about to make key rulings. Let's hope they assert some control of the proceedings.
February 20, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope!
February 20, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Said earlier today that eventually a court might slap Coleman down for continuing this nuisance law suit. Courts don't like being used for nuisance suits - makes em mad as a rule.
February 20, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, Tena. You're an attorney, so I'm interested in your take on why the Minnesota has been so patient in this proceeding, to the point of being accused by some of losing control of the proceedings?
February 20, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's "Minnesota court".
February 20, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a general rule in my experience (exceptions exist) judges give the losing side more time to make their point. It helps make the other side feel that while they lost all of their arguments were considered. It also serves the purpose of reducing error on appeal. Likewise, I agree that the Court will likely not impose sanctions.
Everyone should be patient, the process will take time, but patience at trial level will help ensure a good defense on appeal. Last thing you want is this coming back down on remand and starting all over.
February 20, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
With a margin of only ~250 votes, and with legitimate questions about wrongfully rejected absentee ballots, this is far from a nuisance lawsuit. To some extent, it is MN's own fault because their recount process has no provision to include wrongfully rejected absentee ballots--the only mechanism under statutes to correct these mistakes is in the current judicial contest, making it essentially inevitable in such a close election. With that said, its high time to count the votes and get it done with.
February 20, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do ANY states have provisions for wrongly rejected absentees? If other states had precedents, it would have been nice. I bet this same problem would occur in any state.
February 21, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think this long, drawn out, toxic process is designed to do two things. 1) keep franken out of the senate as long as humanly possible and 2)damage franken so much during this process that voters won't want to re-elect him. and seeing as how he won by a very small margin this time around, unless he does some serious rehab work in minnesota, that parts probably already accomplished.
February 20, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I buy the first part, but not the second. In six years no one will care about any of this. Al Franken is not the first person to win an election by a razor-thin margin, and many who have in the past went on to be re-elected many times.
February 20, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe. i certainly hope i'm wrong about that, but the difference between other razor thin races and this one is that others have been resolved within weeks and not months like this one.
also, the senate race was especially nasty, and franken didn't come across to well (at least to this observer) and now, with this long drawn out process...i dunno...its very easy to see how folks might not want him around that long....
February 20, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Six years is forever in politics. By then Franken will have a record and that's what people will care about.
February 20, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep hearing comments like "Franken didn't come across too well." I hear them in Minnesota even from people who say they did vote for Al. What gives? I like Al Franken, but I seem to be in a minority. Of course, I read his books and listened to his radio show so my level of information is much higher than the average voter even among DFL-ers.
I share your concern, "freaktown," about the toxic residue of this contest and, as I see it, the permanent poisoning of a very large percentage of public opinion here due to the character assassination campaign against Al in the election.
Minnesota like most of the rest of the country is pretty much at the mercy of corporatists and ultra-right radio shills who dominate the organs of opinion here. The Minneapolis Star Tribune and St.Paul Pioneer Press, both routinely denounced as communistic liberals by the noise machine and its robotic followers, BOTH endorsed Norm Coleman!
February 20, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dislike Al Franken. I don't particularly find him a funny guy, and I don't like his attitude, or his general demeanor. I agree with his politics on most things, but I disagree with the way he shows it and goes about it.
Although i don't live in Minnesota, I would vote for Al Franken, just because Norm Coleman sucks. But I wouldn't do much else for Franken.
That said, on this lawsuit, it's ridiculous. I would think most courts would have conoluded that Coleman had said his piece, but apparently they REALLY don't want this go to appeal (I'm almost certain Coleman will do so, because he's like that), and/or doesn't want this to lose on appeal or get remanded.
February 21, 2009 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's reached the point where it is more likely to damage the Republican Party. Enough is enough. Minnesota isn't California or New York or Florida or Illinois. We tend to want people to play nice.
February 20, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are grounds for sanctions here, but I don't recommend getting your hopes up . . . yet. My guess is that Franken's team doesn't expect sanctions to be awarded, but they are laying the groundwork. I suspect that the court will issue a warning and Franken's team will see that as a tactical advantage. Coleman's team, on the other hand will see it as a slap on the wrist and will continue with its delay tactics. That will open the door for a second call for sanctions. From my experience it's about the third call that causes a court to really drop the hammer.
The court won't throw out a case of this magnitude on a sanctions motion, but Coleman could wind up paying a huge attorneys fees award to Franken.
The dismissal motion filed by Franken is still unresolved though, and if/when Coleman's team pushes the court beyond its patience, they may rule on that eventually.
February 20, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This case has nothing whatever to do with justice, it's all politics. With Franken in the Senate, the Democrats are virtually fillibuster proof. Democrats need to figure out how to turn up the heat on the Republicans. This is what we get for bipartisan b.s. We get rolled.
February 20, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sanctions will likely not be imposed, but I agree that the panel of judges have probably had enough of this chicanery and grandstanding. Maybe a ruling next week and maybe the Senate will assert its power to seat Franken.
February 20, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans have everything to gain by taking this as far as it will go, and they will.
Dems seem to be doing little if anything to bolster Franken's fight, while he faces a corporate backed assault, a right leaning state supreme court and a right leaning US supreme court, plus right wing radio, TV and internet ads drumming up money and broad support for Coleman, and even this weird accusations that somehow he (Franken) is being less than "senatorial" by defending himself.
This has nothing to do with what's right, and everything to do with who fights best. And one on one, Dems never seem to figure this out.
February 20, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
StPete- I believe you have got it right. While hanging the seat up for as long as possible I think they intend to get the equal protection angle in front of the SCOTUS. A win there for coleman could make the standards for counting absentee ballots impossibly high.
Is it possible that absentee ballots could become so toxic that states would opt to eliminate them? If SCOTUS demands perfect uniformity in assessing ballots (as Coleman is pushing for) what alternative is there but to abandon the whole thing? Otherwise any close election would be thrown out. And we know how absentee ballots swing. The present SCOTUS would love that outcome.
February 21, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink