Coleman Lawyer Floats New Possibility To Judges: Throwing Out The Election
That talk from the Coleman campaign about how we can't get a legitimate winner in the Senate race, and therefore we can't certify a result for Al Franken, has now gone beyond the court of public opinion -- it has officially entered the courtroom itself.
The Coleman team has previously said that the judges have to either undo the strict standards for letting in new ballots, or else undertake a review of all 290,000 absentee ballots from Election Night and start proportionately reducing the totals. In a new letter to the judges, however, Coleman lawyer James Langdon floats a new solution -- declaring the election to be unsolvable, and nullifying it entirely:
Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates -- and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast -- the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election. In that regard, the Court may wish to review the following cases addressing situations in which the number of illegal votes is large and the margin of victory is small...
So there you have it. The Coleman legal team is now officially putting forward the idea of throwing out the election, as a serious potential legal remedy. The context so far indicates that this is part of their game of chicken with the court, to get them to undo the strict standards themselves, or perhaps go along on a proportionate deduction regime that might hurt Al Franken. But who knows where it will go from here.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
While we're at it, let's throw out the 2000 election results too.
March 3, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that this was (probably) said tongue in cheek, but I agree. The American electorate should be absolved from the calumny that they elected the man (at least in 2000).
March 3, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman's consideration for the voting process is touching. This must mean that if the court gave him the election that he would refuse to talk the seat until a new election was held.
How are the judges not laughing him out of the court?
March 3, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be hilarious if they did throw everything out, have a new election and Franken wins by a landslide.
I'm sure most Minnesotans are disgusted by Coleman by now and many who originally voted for him are determined to make sure he doesn't get in the Senate now. He has embarrassed the whole state with his shenanigans.
March 3, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it doesn't work that way. Since Franken was certified by the Recount Board, Franken is presumed to be the winner. The burden of proof is on Coleman, and in order for him to prevail, he must affirmatively prove that he received more lawfully-cast ballots. Assume Coleman is right, that the margin is so close and the errors so large that the Court cannot determine who actually received more votes. If that were the case, the Court would be obligated to declare that Coleman was unable to prove he received more votes, and therefore the recount result must stand and Franken would remain the winner.
March 3, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moreover, there is NO provision in the statute for a do-over election. There is even a provision for a coin flip in case of a tie, which is a pretty strong indicator that they do NOT want to re-run the election. This is an easy one for the court to dismiss, and they will. It's really just about the GOP trying to cast the election as illegitimate so they can argue that point in the Senate, where the final battle will be.
March 3, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then why am I a little nervous?
Oh right. I'm a Democrat.
March 3, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that was sarcasm.
Signed,
A non-wussy Democrat, who is not in the least bit nervous.
March 3, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Presenter:Clearly Dinsdale inspired tremendous fear among his business associates. But what was he really like?
Gloria:I walked out with Dinsdale on many occasions and found him a charming and erudite companion. He was wont to introduce one to eminent celebrities, celebrated American singers, members of the aristocracy and other gang leaders,
Interviewer (off screen): How had he met them?
Gloria:Through his work for charities. He took a warm interest in Boys' Clubs, Sailors' Homes, Choristers' Associations and the Grenadier Guards.
Interviewer:Was there anything unusual about him?
Gloria:I should say not. Except, that Dinsdale was convinced that he was being watched by a giant hedgehog whom he referred to as 'Spiny Norman'.
Interviewer: How big was Norman supposed to be?
Gloria:Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about twelve feet from his snout to his anus, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be anything up to eight hundred yards long. When Norman was about Dinsdale would go very quiet and start wobbling and his nose would swell up and his teeth would move about and he'd get very violent and claim that he'd laid Stanley Baldwin."
Interviewer: "Did it worry you that he, for example, stitched people's legs together?"
Gloria: "Well it's better than bottling it up isn't it. He was a gentleman, Dinsdale, and what's more he knew how to treat a female impersonator."
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/piranha.htm
March 3, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put. I hope Franken's people are looking at this this in the same way.
March 3, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second your second, and hope that the COURT will look at it this way.
Raising uncertain doubts is sometimes acceptable when you are the defense in a criminal prosecution. This is not that!
March 3, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems like a move by Coleman signaling he has no shot to pick up enough votes in court.
Because, if after all the legal stuff is worked out and Coleman pulls out a miracle then Franken could challenge the results of the election on the grounds that Coleman just laid out and declare that there must be a re-vote. After all, Norm argued that the results cannot be certified, so if they try to certify Norm then Al can come right back at him
March 3, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what's his recommendation to make the re-election error free? A do-over with the same system wouldn't fix what he sees as the problems with the vote.
March 3, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simple. It's only fair if the Republican wins.
March 3, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Losers always want a do over, don't they? "OK 2 out of 3; 3 out of 5..."
March 3, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just looked in a dictionary, and right there, right there, next to "stench of despair", was Slimy Norman's picture.
March 3, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time for the coin toss: Heads Norm wins, tails Al loses.
How could it be fairer?
March 3, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
elections don't work
so let's hold another election
FUCKING BRILLIANT
March 3, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
So to Coleman the cost of a recount was going to be too high so Franken should just take his toys and go home but now that Franken is the winner of the election, no expense should be spared in overturning that? Rank hypocrisy.
I still say that to Coleman, the perfect combination of actions and rulings, the most "fair" are whatever combination it takes to get him back into that seat.
I've been patient but it's time for the Harry Reid and the rest of the wimps in the Senate to stand up and seat Franken, if only provisionally for now.
March 3, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Margaret, this has been gone over again and again. It does not work that way, no matter who the Majority Leader is. Seating Franken without a certification* signed by both Mark Ritchie (MN Secretary of State) and "Timmay!" (MN Governor) would require changing standing Senate rules. That change requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate, which we all know is not going to happen.
Take your bile out on Senate Democrats if you must, but do it for valid reasons. This is not one. And go do your damn homework before you spout this nonsense again.
I really am getting bloody sick and tired of people who act as though the problem is Harry Reid, when it is not yet in his hands to solve. Does he have issues? Yes. Is this one? Most assuredly not.
* Issued, under MN election law, only at the conclusion of the "contest" we are witnessing, in which Quimby's strategy is to drag things out and make money for his legal team.
March 3, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, the problem IS Harry Reid -- just not in this particular case. ;-)
March 3, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course. Human nature being what it is, and people doing things the way they always have, purely because unlearning decades of acclimation to the workings of an institution is something none of us is wired for in real life, could not possibly be a rational explanation, could it?
March 3, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well your reverence of Reid notwithstanding, you certainly earn your pseudonym. I have a suggestion though: Maybe it should be Sanctimonious Old Grouch. Jeebus, take a valium.
March 3, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Proud of your ignorance, then? And defensive to boot!
March 3, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe if Reid and the Democrats can't even seat Franken provisionally, he should quit saying that he's going to.
Why do you have to act like you're so much better than everybody else? Is it because you get off on feeling superior? Is it because you were bullied as a child? I wasn't the one who pissed in your cheerios but if you insist on acting like a jerk, please feel free. I have better things to do with my time than argue online with someone who doesn't even have the courage to use their own name.
March 3, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incredibly thin-skinned to boot.
Keep digging, you'll get out of this hole yet.
March 3, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You go Margaret. You chill Old Grouch.
March 3, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who asked you?
March 4, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Why do you have to act like you're so much better than everybody else?"
I've never read either of your posts before so I'm reluctant to step in. However, this does remind me of a common disagreement online.
Personally, I actually appreciate posts containing useful information, such as TOG posted with his description of the process (presuming it's actually correct) and therefore the limitations and hurdles to be overcome before seating AF. Even if you dislike his tone, that's still useful information.
By comparison, I find a sort of general kvetching tone, looking for someone to caricature and blame randomly (Harry Reid, Pelosi, the boogeyman, etc) to be far more offensive. That's imo too simplistic, a distraction and waste of everyone's time and energy, and ultimately self defeating.
March 4, 2009 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I find strangest about this whole affair is the sheer disdain shown by the Coleman camp for Minnesotans. I guess after James Baker's "you can't trust Americans to be honest about counting votes" strategy worked in 2000, I shouldn't be so surprised.
March 3, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I actually wish that the Startribune would do a poll that asks people who they would vote for if the election were held today. I'll bet Coleman would be down by double digits.
Norm has effectively forfeited his Minnesota citizenship at this point. He was always a bit of an outsider that intrigued the rubes that live here. Now, he has shown that he has no respect for this place at all.
March 3, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
works for me
March 3, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, we should recognize that Coleman's lawyers are almost comically incompetent. I don't think they ever understood what they were trying to do. For them, they have been trying to point out Bush v. Gore issues when it is almost entirely irrelevant to the suit.
What's funny about this letter is that the lawyers are forced to bring in examples from other jurisdictions. They are not making any argument about the authority of the court to grant this remedy. They are just saying that people have done this in other states. I would really doubt they could win this argument if they sought that remedy from the court. See Minn. Stat. Sec. 209.07, Subd. 1 (https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=209.07) which grants the contest court the authority to revoke a certificate of election when the contestant (in this case Coleman) succeeds. No mention of the court having the authority to invalidate the entire election.
That said, in my humble opinion, they have a legitimate argument that the court needs to change its rulings on some ballots the court has already ordered counted. Don't worry, kiddies, it's less than 40 ballots from Franken supporters whose votes were not counted in recount. So, if the court reversed on those ballots, it would not even reduce Franken's 225 vote lead.
March 3, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's delusional to expect the same turnout we saw last November. And this is, after all, the state that gave us Coleman, Bachmann, and Pawlenty. Of course Coleman wants a re-do.
March 3, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
yup, a do over is not in Franken's favor. No reason to wish for it.
March 3, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any projected end date for this farce? How much longer can Coleman tie up the courts? Can he really appeal any result here? Could this stretch into the summer?
March 3, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman has rested his case. Franken's up next. One observer has argued that Coleman didn't prove anything. (Here: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/02/27/7053/week_five_of_coleman-franken_trial_has_coleman_proved_his_case)
If that's right, it could be over this afternoon if Franken's lawyers are bold enough to move for a directed verdict. All that means is that Coleman didn't make a prima facie case that the election ought to be overturned. If the court agreed, the whole thing's over with.
Franken has his own counterclaims though, and some of them are similar to Coleman's claims, especially regarding rejected absentee ballots. So, they probably won't move for a directed verdict. Instead, Franken now makes his case on his counterclaims, his defenses to Coleman's claims, and provides any evidence he has to dispute Coleman's evidence. Yes, it could go on for a few more weeks, but Franken's lawyers seem to know what they're doing. So, if they're efficient, it shouldn't take too much longer.
March 3, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Out of respect for Coleman's faith, I'm going to call this move a Hail Larry.
March 3, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
or maybe a hail moshe?
March 3, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or Hail Bernie. As in "my attorney."
March 3, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! Let's give it up for the late, great Blossom Dearie! (She immortalized the David Frischberg song 'My Attorney Bernie').
March 3, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
sleazy norm, very sleazy.
why should we be surprised that a member of team apartheid wants to take away the ability of others to make a free choice?
it all makes perfect sense to me.
March 3, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Team apartheid" . . . Ummmmm. . . what?
March 3, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually, its Team Apartheid. i should have capitalized it. my bad.
March 3, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's spelled "non sequitur." It is your bad, though, so at least you got that right.
March 3, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is their final "Helm's Deep" retreat---declaring the election invalid, declaring the entire law invalid...kind of like the "frat trial in the movie 'Animal House', don't like the outcome condemn the entire system.
But tactically they are doing what the conservative's wanted in this regard and that was hold down one vote. The reason is that it actually is the Republicans who have strategic issues to hold onto the threat of filibuster----actually there are a few responsible members in the Senate with GOP by their names----
The conservatives push any harder and one or more might push back....Snowe or Collins or both could go the route of Independent....Bunning could resign as could Voinovich and 60 votes could be in the offing....
March 3, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now we're just making it up as we go along...............?
March 3, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not. They've been making it up as they go along from the very beginning.
March 3, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question to Norm: If you had turned out to be 200 votes ahead after the recount, would you be requesting a new election ? If not then STFU !
March 3, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
is it just me or does norm look like the slightly retarded and morally delinquent love child of john elway and sandra bernhard?
john elway: http://tinyurl.com/cnol99
sandra bernhard: http://tinyurl.com/db4fvz
March 3, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if we have to revote, Coleman is going to foot the bill for the election, right?
March 3, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink