Coleman Spokesman Declares That Court Can't Certify Election Result
At a press conference just now, Coleman spokesman Ben Ginsberg said it very bluntly: He does not believe it's possible for the election court to legally declare a winner.
The Coleman campaign has now been building up a case that there are too many intractable legal problems in this case, and they've gone so far as to openly suggest to the judges that the whole thing just be thrown out. Now Ginsberg is pumping up the volume a little more.
Ginsberg was repeatedly asked whether the Coleman camp wants a new election.
At one point, he said: "We're calling for this court to do its duty and either certify -- which I don't think it can do -- or not certify," adding that once the court realizes they can't certify the vote totals, we can then talk about a remedy.
One thing that now needs to be pointed out is a clever piece of word-play Ginsberg has used. At the presser today he said the court is now unable to certify "the number of legally-cast votes," and he's also used the phrase "the exact number of legal votes."
But that's not what the law says. It says, emphasis ours: "the only question to be decided by the court is which party to the contest received the highest number of votes legally cast at the election and is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election."
The law doesn't say the exact number of legal votes. It just calls for a legal determination of which party received more of them.
However, Norm has us covered there -- he doubts we can figure that out, either.
(Ginsberg presser c/o The Uptake.)
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Thanks for the clarification about legal determination versus legally cast.
I find it interesting that Menendez, of all people, is out criticizing Coleman's tactics. Is he trying to cover up the fact that he's blocking some action by Obama?
March 3, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Menendez is chairman of the DSCC.
March 3, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a bad move for Team Coleman--it's just unclear when they will figure it out.
The Election Contest law requires that the Court certify which candidate recieved the highest number of votes. The Secretary of State has canvassed the vote and determined that Franken did. Coleman, as the contestant, has the burden of proof to establish the Secretary of State was wrong.
If the Court cannot determine whether Franken or Coleman received the highest number of votes, then Coleman has not met his burden of proof, and the Court must award judgment to Franken, and the Certificate must issue.
Coleman's problem here is fundamentally that redress he seeks--a new election--is not available. Someone won and someone lost on election day, and it is the duty of the Election officials and the courts to determine who. That's all they can do. It may well be true that even elections have a margin of error, and thus certainty is not possible in close elections. But that's just a fact of the electoral system.
March 3, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Court cannot determine whether Franken or Coleman received the highest number of votes, then Coleman has not met his burden of proof, and the Court must award judgment to Franken, and the Certificate must issue.
Yes. Exactly what I said here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/coleman-lawyer-floats-new-possibility-to-judges-throwing-out-the-election.php#comment-3395001
March 3, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Apparently, we're thinking the same thing.
And apparently, Team Coleman is not thinking at all. At least in terms of the endgame.
March 3, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman's been trying very hard to portray the Secretary of State, or more specifically the database, as fatally flawed. In court, the attys. keep trying to punch tank-sized holes in the SoS's testimony without a lot of success; there's a lot of "well, IF tah-dah tah-dah, then where did you fail?" Lots of hypotheticals, very little substance. There is no doubt that there are errors in the database of ~3 million, and no doubt that there were some errors by people who referred to it. To be otherwise would be a miracle of major proportions.
Ginsberg-in-the-hallway spouts an entirely different story. He asserts that the SoS and the court (and anyone with a brain) has recognized that the database is a total mess, that this mess has so confused the election results that they are unalterably tainted. It's just so sad and frustrating! Guess we just need a do-over. My take is that all this spinning is aimed at the press who he hopes will carry his story vs. actually listening in court. When referenced to actual court testimony, his blathering is totally irrelevant and misleading.
P.S. Testimony in court that he doesn't agree with or which presents a different take than his he refers to as "chatter."
March 3, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are they planning on using a different database in the do-over election?
Just wondering.
March 3, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point Franken and the Dems need to make is that Coleman had every opportunity to get any errors corrected during the Election Contest, but he simply failed to present a clear picture to the Court that would allow them to see the errors and determine what needed to be fixed. Simply alleging errors is not the same as actually showing errors. I'm sure the Court in its written decision will make the same point, because they are not going to allow the validity of the election to remain in question.
As Elias pointed out yesterday, its not what Ginsberg says in the hallway that matters--its the proceedings in the courtroom, and there the Coleman campaign has fallen short, even though it had every opportunity to present evidence and get the alleged errors corrected.
March 3, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: We lost. This argument may be lame, but it's all we have left.
March 3, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I declare that they can. So there.
March 3, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Courts deal with hard questions every day. Turns out this one is really not so hard (despite all of the claims to the contrary by Coleman and his crack team or is that team on crack).
March 3, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
IANAL but I can't imagine that it makes judges very well-disposed toward your case when your lawyers grandstand at their expense (even presuming to publicly lecture the judges on what they "can't" do) with transparently stupid shit that bears absolutely no relationship to any actual provisions of the law.
March 3, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Coleman team has chosen Ginsberg as its public face. When will the mainstream media tell the story about him? Everyone reading this blog knows at least some of his history, but I doubt that the general public does. Let's read something about his involvement with the Bush v. Gore case. His role in organizing the Brooks Brothers riot will make interesting reading. Don't you think the public would enjoy reading about federally-paid employees (Congressional staffers) demonstrating against the recount on government property in Florida in 2000? Let's hear about Ben and the Swift Boat liars. This is Ben's third major effort to mislead people in the hope of changing an electoral outcome. Or have there been others? Inquiring minds want to know. This is a great story, folks. Who is going to tell it and spread it wide?
March 3, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We're calling for this court to do its duty and either certify -- which I don't think it can do -- or not certify," -- Ginsberg
Waitaminnit! That is not the duty of the court. "certify" is not the distinction here, that's not what the trial is about.
Is he being terribly careless or deliberately lying?
March 4, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's a lawyer and a Republican. And he's a lawyer for a Republican. And his lips are moving. What do you think?
March 4, 2009 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think too much as it is, you don't want to know the rest of it!
March 4, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink