Minnesota Court Rejects Coleman Witness -- And Perhaps His Whole Argument
The Minnesota election court handed down another defeat for Norm Coleman tonight -- quite possibly a significant one -- ruling in favor of a Franken motion to forbid Coleman from bringing forward an expert witness he wanted.
The background info: Coleman has charged that the variations in how flawed absentee ballots could be accepted in some counties amounted to a violation of Equal Protection, and the only remedy is to throw out the rules entirely and count invalid ballots. To further this claim, he wanted to bring in King Banaian, an economics professor and right-wing blogger, to say that the differing numbers of ballots rejections across counties showed unequal treatment -- as opposed to simple differences in the numbers of actual ballots worthy of acceptance of rejection.
The court's very short analysis sides with Franken's motion to keep Banaian out -- and appears to go further in rejecting the whole premise of Coleman's argument:
The only question that can be decided in an election contest is which party received the highest number of legally cast votes, and therefore is entitled to receive the certificate of election. Minn. Stat. §209.12. The Court will be reviewing all ballots presented according to the uniform standard contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 203B. It is irrelevant whether there were irregularities between the counties in applying Minnesota Statutes §203B.12, subd. 2, prior to this election contest. The Court does not believe Banaian's testimony would assist in determining the issues properly before it.
In plain English: Seriously, stop wasting our time.
The Coleman camp has made it pretty clear that they'll be appealing the court's legal decisions against them, which could drag this out even longer. So put this one on the list.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Well, as earlier asked, is there any deadline for this case or cannot it go on forever? Does MN state law specify a duration for election appeals?
February 18, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I right in understanding that the court didn't reject Colman's argument directly, but simply stated that it isn't an issue which can be brought before this court. If so, this actually opens the door for Coleman to begin a whole new case in a different court about the equal protection argument they want to make, yes?
February 18, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but...
I think that the only thing that can prevent the issuance of an election certificate is the election contest. So if this court rules in Franken's favor, he gets seated regardless of whether there is a separate federal proceeding litigating the equal protection issues.
February 19, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
So then what issues does Coleman have left to argue?
Damn this travesty is dragging on.
February 18, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought republicans were for tort reform and against frivolous lawsuits. Well I guess they for long drown out laughable lawsuits if it can benefit them
February 18, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is a public servant job really that vital to Coleman? Its scary to what depths cretins like Coleman will sink to keep power. It’s not about the people of Minnesota, it never was. It’s solely about the republican party. Only a republican would spend millions of other peoples hard earned money to try and keep a job that the your constituents voted you out of that only pays about $160k a year. Priceless
February 19, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be totally, 100% clear about this.
This case has absolutley nothing to do with Norm Coleman keeping his seat. This is only, only, only, about 1 thing...keeping Franken out as long as humanly/legally possible to keep Democrats from having a 59th vote (and a liberal vote at that).
That's it. That's all. Coleman knows he's lost, the court knows he's lost, and Al Franken knows he's lost. But there are still legal avenues to which Coleman can drag out the process, and he's going to use every single one he can to keep Franken from getting seated.
My question: Once the court rules in favor of Franken (and it will), can he be seated even if Coleman appeals?
February 19, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
February 19, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that and undermining the legitimacy of Senator Franken. And building up a boogeyman they can use to raise money from the rubes.
For the national GOP that's funding this, it's an investment.
February 19, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the 'election contest' not end until Coleman has exhausted every conceivable appeal?
Presume that Franken wins the contest currently before the three-judge panel. Would Pawlenty and Ritchie then have a legal basis for certifying the election? Or are their hands tied until Norm exhausts his options in Federal Court? If he had any discretion in the matter, I wonder if Pawlenty would sign anything that would certify Franken...or if he would hang tough with Coleman.
February 19, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then Coleman goes to the Supremes.
February 19, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
He gets one appeal directly to the MN Supreme Court.
If they uphold the lower court, their order presumably will include an order to the Secy of State and the governor to issue the certificate, which Franken takes to the Senate.
The contest is over at that point and any further appeals to the US Supreme Court are simply Coleman's folly.
February 19, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point Coleman's desperate and despicable legal campaign has likely gone so far beyond the pale that the SC would be unlikely to grant his appeal even a cursory hearing.
"Minnesota nice" only goes so far.
February 19, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The actual ruling was that Norm is too dumb to be in the Senate.
February 19, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
from the minnesotans ive known, im thinking that they must really be souring on coleman about now. cant imagine his showboating nonsense is going over very well back there at all, except among his most ardent supporters. anyone seen any polls or even anecdotal evidence on the buzz from the ground up in minnesota?
February 19, 2009 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you would be right, but for the media coverage of the proceedings. The newspapers, at least, are either unwilling or unable to convey how completely Coleman is wasting the court's (everyone's) time, and is basically just filibustering Franken's certificate. So Minnesotans are just getting a he-said he-said account from the mouthpieces after each day's events.
Plus, the media are comfortable playing up the "pox on both houses" aspect. Neither guy came close to a majority, so it's fairly safe to paint everyone involved as somehow constitutionally (lowercase c) unworthy of the senate seat and portray this contest as a tangle between two mongrels who happened upon a T-Bone Steak.
Maybe after today's tantrum and this ruling things will become a little more clear. Norm thinks everyone is against hi-first the canvassing board, now the court, and Minnesotans are educated enough to realize that it's probably not true and that he just plain lost. Not that the wingers in the Strib comments (who probably have little Michelle Bachmann shrines in their homes) will ever be persuaded, no matter how many courts and boards toss Coleman out on his ass. ACORN 4 EVAH.
February 19, 2009 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being in Minnesota and not afraid to speak with strangers (I wasn't BORN here) I can say that anecdotal evidence seems to bear out a "pox on both your houses" reaction amongst the general, apolitical citizenry. This is NOT good for Al, whose public image definitely suffers residual effects from the smear campaign of character assassination that went on for a year and a half against him, prior to the election. He was called a tax cheat, a pornographer, a clown, "angry Al," and other "Minnesota nice" things, in a saturation campaign of negative advertising. This may be SOP elsewhere but Minnesotans don't usually hear such tripe and too many bought it. I am surprised that Al got as many votes as he did. But with only 1 or 2% higher turnout on election day, he would have clearly been elected. EVERY VOTE MATTERS!!!
February 19, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
bummer, didnt consider that angle. nice analysis tho - and yeah hopefully they'll all notice the pattern of 'everyone's wrong but norm.'
"two mongrels that happened upon a t-bone steak." heh. i like that.
February 19, 2009 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for giving a candidate every reasonable opportunity to exercise their legal rights but this is getting ridiculous and Coleman is clearly just filibustering. Even though he lost by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point, he hasn't been able to prove that there has been sufficient fraud or mistakes found in the ballot-counting process to overcome that 225 vote deficit. He doesn't have a case.
Where does this end? IANAL but it seems that Coleman could litigate this endlessly. It's a shame that Franken can't be seated provisionally until this legal filibustering is put to an end.
February 19, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What, if anything, can the MN legislature do? Can't they change the requirement that every appeal be heard before a certificate can be issued?
February 19, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bill to allow provisional certification is currently in a House committee being fine tuned. When it leaves committee, it has to pass the House, then pass the Senate. Then, is the R-Governor going to sign it or veto it? If vetoed, then the House and Senate have to override the veto. One chamber has enough Democrats to override, but the other one is three votes short of an override.
February 19, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has been said before but the real trouble started when the previous court (was it the Minn. SC? Been so long I forget.) gave the campaigns the opportunity to veto ballots. This threw the door open to all of this doubt and quibling about the fairness of any possible vote counting process. I don't know where they got the idea that the contestants should be allowed to be part of the judging process.
In that sense Coleman is right. If there is any recount the whole process of evaluating the ballots should be done by the original judges without any interferance from Franken or Coleman.
But the thing was done by the rules both parties agreed to. Now if the present court will just tell Coleman to move on and get a life we can all can do the same.
February 19, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
SAM: How's life treating you, Norm?
NORM: It's not, Sammy, but you can.
SAM: How's life treating you, Norm?
NORM: Like it caught me sleeping with his wife.
PAUL: Hey Norm, how's the world treating you?
NORM: Like a baby treats a diaper.
"Cheers"!
February 19, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad Norman doesn't get caught in actuality, by someone with a temper and a baseball bat. This'd be over really fast - then again, so would Slimy Norman.
(I know of one married woman who left a position because Norman was harassing her to such a degree - it's only anecdotal, true, still, I know and trust the source.)
February 19, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The key line in the Court order is that it is "irrelevant" to this contest if the counties interpreted MN election statutes somewhat differently before the election contest. The three judges can easily articulate that position -- by pointing out that minor but consistent interpretations within counties are fair to all candidates -- and move this thing along. Let's hope they do so because, so far, the Coleman lawyers are clearly stalling and going over illegal or irrelevant ballots day in and day out. Within dozens more jurisdications to go, they can drag this out for many more weeks, and then turn to appeals that drag it out much further. To anyone watching the proceedings, it is clear that is their aim.
February 19, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
At what point does this set a precedent for contests that aren't even close?
I mean, even if someone wins by 10% of the vote there's bound to be some random legal arguement about ballot issues even if it has no bearing on the outcome of the election.
At what point does Coleman open the door to us seeing this sort of bogus lawsuit every election, simply to hinder the opposition a seat for as long as possible?
February 19, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The basis for this boondoggle was the State-mandated recount. An election with a 10% spread wouldn't qualify for a recount.
If provable voter fraud were involved, however, there would be cause for the matter to be taken up by the courts. The outcome of that would probably result in a second election (among other things).
February 19, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
“This election is totally invalid, and the only way to make it valid is to count a bunch of invalid votes.”
That makes a lot of sense (in Bizarro World).
February 19, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Minnesota law provides ". . . in case of a contest, an election certificate shall not be issued until a court of proper jurisdiction has finally determined the contest." It also provides in this case for direct appeal from the contest court to the Minnesota Supreme Court. A certificate should issues after the Minn S Ct decides the appeal.
February 19, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And on the basis of what expertise would King Banaian testify?
February 19, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Atlas- unfortunately Coleman's stupidity is not a sufficient reason to keep him out of Congress. Look @ Texas's Coryun, both of S Carolina & Kentucky's senators. And in the House, you have Bachman, who in any meritocratic, sane universe would be locked up.
I hope the court decides soon that Coleman's lower vote total is a sufficient reason to keep him out.
February 19, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
How long can Minnesota go without a senator? Franken has been ahead in votes for months now, surely someone can step in and bring this travesty to an end.
February 19, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink