Minnesota Achieves New Record -- On Unresolved Elections
The state of Minnesota will now achieve a new personal milestone: Breaking their previous record for the longest unresolved election.
The Star Tribune points out that after today, the Senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman will have become the longest period that any statewide office in Minnesota remained up in the air, breaking the previous record of the 1962 gubernatorial election. In that prior election, however, the office itself did not actually stay vacant, like it is now.
However, this race is still not the all-time record-holder since the direct election of Senators began. That honor goes to the 1974 New Hampshire race, for which the seat stayed empty all the way into the Summer of 1975. Then again, we can't rule that out for this race.
Another thing: That New Hampshire race ended in a do-over election, which Norm Coleman and his legal team have been quite openly agitating for.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Typed it before . . . Why hasn't Coleman been indicted, yet?
March 25, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmph! I don't get WTF is taking these judges so long to decide a case that every other rational person, (including the remaining 3 rational republicans), has decided already. Coleman didn't present a very compelling case, he didn't even present a very cogent case in my opinion. I know that it's been discussed over and over how they "are trying to preclude avenues for appeal", but there is no evidence for that except the extremely circumstantial kind, (i.e. why else could they be taking so long?), so forgive me if I still consider them to be a bunch of wanking shills who are actively seeking legal grounds to rid themselves of Franken. Hey, my theory is exactly as likely and credible as the "preventing appeals" theories.
March 25, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you were watching the trial, but the litigants (specifically Coleman) dumped thousands and thousands of pages of evidence on the court. At the very least, they have to discern the relevant from the irrelevant among all that evidence, let alone their obligation to make the hundreds of factfindings relevant to the contested absentee ballots. This stuff doesn't happen overnight.
March 25, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're wrong, but it is mind boggling that they have not reached a decision. There are three judges, right? Does it have to be unanimous? It seems odd that it could be anything BUT unanimous considering that this is all about who got the most votes, which is not an intellectual argument.
I echo Richard's comment above. Why should the FBI stand aside during this if they think Coleman broke the law?
March 25, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As underwhelm said, it's not quite that simple. When they release a "decision", that's not just a simple yes or no answer. They have to write a book report. The "decision" is going to be a hundred-ish-page document outlining every single piece of evidence or argumentation either side laid out during the trial and explaining why the court did or didn't find it persuasive. Especially given the Coleman camp's shotgun approach, that's going to be a lot of writing. And you want them to be taking their time on this, because basically what this document is is the court's argument to the higher courts saying "here's why you shouldn't overturn us on appeal".
March 25, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a lawyer, an expert voting expert like Von Spasky or a Minnesotan but, I checked the blog on uptake.org daily during the trial. The attorney for Coleman, even though a Democrat, said he wasn't an expert in election law and proceeded to prove it. The Coleman group agreed to accounting for and re-counting certain ballots. When it worked in Franken's favor, they said the Election Commission broke the law by permitting them to do it. It was their idea in the first place. Sopmeone (most) with a better understanding of the law said they couldn't agree to something before the trial and not agree after it begins when it doesn't break their way. There is a legal term for it. I don't knoe what it is. Watching and reading the blogs at the time it had been stated; in Minnesota whoever gets the most votes wins; period. Also it was written that if Coleman loses an appeal to the MN. SC Franken would be certified. And one I don't understand, the SCOTUS would not be able to change it and the Senate would be the last arbiter. It would seem strange for the SCOTUS to accept the case and overturn a state SC in this case. I am now ready for the arrows. I'll accept any criticism of my post. If you attack me personally; kiss my ass. Thank you.
March 25, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you summed it up perfectly. So what's taking so long -- I am with you -- it is open and shut!
PS - why would you expect to be raked over the coals with a comment like yours? There was nothing inflammatory in it. I hope you haven't been attacked here personally. Anyway, nice to hear from you!
March 25, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
----
Sopmeone (most) with a better understanding of the law said they couldn't agree to something before the trial and not agree after it begins when it doesn't break their way. There is a legal term for it. I don't knoe what it is.
----
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6934
This article mentions terms like: legally binding stipulation, estoppel and invited error.
- FTF
March 25, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it is taking too long, but this can be an issue when you have a multi-judge panel -- particularly if they are trying to reach a unanimous decision, which I think this will be in the end.
My guess is that you will see the following sequence of rulings:
(1) The court will issue an order directing the SOS to count X number of ballots. Some have already been resolved (the summary judgment motions that were granted on the S.Ct. petitioners). We know that each party submitted a large number of other ballots. The court is likely evaluating each one to see if it meets all the regulations. If it does it will get in. If not, they will tell us why with specificity (likely on several grounds). This order in itself will take quite a while to prepare given the number of ballots involved (nearly a couple of thousand submitted). They will likely resolve the outstanding summary judgment motion at the same time, but it will probably be a separate order.
(2) Assuming that the number of ballots to be counted is greater than 225 (which is probably likely), then the court will wait until after those ballots are counted to issue an order.
(3) To the extent that there are "lizard people" or similar problematic ballots, then the court may need to do an evidentiary hearing to resolve any challenges to the inclusion of those ballots. Note, I do not know if the E.C. has initial jurisdiction over these issues or if it would need to go back before the state canvassing board -- probably the former, but I do not know.
(4) Once all of the issues with the outstanding ballots are resolved, then the E.C. will issue its order as to "who received the greater number of legally cast ballots".
Then the appeal. Unfortunately, I think we have a bit more process before this is complete.
March 25, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is a "lizard person?" Someone who can grow a new tail?
March 25, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
During the recount there was a lot of publicity about a ballot on which someone wrote "Lizard People" in every write-in space, but attempted to also vote for Franken. Ultimately it was considered an overvote and not counted. But, I was referring generally to ballots that have questionable voter intent. Whichever candidate is behind will likely try to argue that certain ballots should be included or disregarded based on the voter’s intent. One could argue that those issues of intent should be referred to the election canvassing board for determination rather than heard by the E.C. If so, that would add an additional layer of hearing and process before the E.C. could rule, unless, possibly, if the number of disputed ballots is smaller than the then existing margin.
March 25, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the ironies (for the ReTaliban) is that once Franken is actually seated, he may have been absent for many of the hardest votes our delegations will have to make.
So when he runs for re-election, the ReTaliban won't be able to stick him with voting FOR the Stim or for Bailout Part Deux or even for the budget.
They're immunizing him by fighting too long.
That would be great!
March 25, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they would attack him as a do-nothing who skipped the votes.
March 25, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! You think like a republican! (Maybe you just spent so much time watching Coleman that you have an intuitive sense of how his ilk will respond to a situation)
March 25, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also anxiously awaiting the court's ruling, but I understand perfectly why it's taking so long. The judges need to decide on a couple of things before they even look at particular ballots.
•They said that in order to include a ballot, it needed to have certain proofs that it was a legal ballot. Coleman argued that some things could be assumed, blah, blah. That needs nailing down beyond question.
• There's the issue of someone moving from apt. 10 to apt. 12 in the same building-does this require a change of address form? Again, their answer needs nailing down, this as well as some other "minor" questions.
• Coleman's ballots by and large weren't proved in the way the court asked for, but some proportion of them would be legal if Coleman had bothered to do it right. This probably needs to be addressed; not that the court is going prove them themselves, but this is a huge error on Coleman's part and needs addressing.
Franken brought 200+ ballots to be considered. His stuff is so well organized that it will be easy to tell which ones they want to count and which will be given a pass. On the last day, Franken also dumped another pile of ballots, seemingly as a "what the heck?" This pile will take some time.
Coleman's stuff is a disorganized disaster. Franken's people did their best to object to random paper avalanches being entered in evidence, but the remainder is still a mess. It takes longer to deal with a mess.
Meanwhile, I keep checking here and uptake.org several times a day.
March 25, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid they are looking for any way they can find to give this to Coleman. I could be wrong, but the way things have gone for the last eight years I have to wonder.
March 25, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's unjustified paranoia.
March 25, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have ballots to review as well as decisions to make.
March 25, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the update Eric.
toxophilite, that is good analysis.
Colman's tactics have been a huge waste of time. The Judges will not reward him for wasting their time.
runfastandwin,
Don't lose any sleep over it. Unfortunately, if they just told Norm "Not only NO, but HELL NO" It would likely not be a verdict that would withstand the inevitable appeal(s). It will take some time to dot all the i's and cross all the t's but in the end, the adjective preceding NO will be a lot stronger than HELL, and likely followed by "and the horse you rode in on."
March 25, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks kevbo I sure hope you are right.
March 25, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The longest unresolved election in MINNESOTA history?
Sounds like the tallest building in Topeka Kansas.
March 25, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi. My name is fpie and I'm a Franken/Coleman electionoholic.
I check this site first when I go on line. I check to read comments on these stories before I go to bed. I can't help but make a comment to this who cares story because it's got a picture of Al&Norm at the top. I have no control over this obscession.
Thanks. Please leave a dollar in the jar to pay for the coffee. And I want to thank Josh for letting us all have our meeting here.
March 25, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cases like yours have been treated...but never fully cured.
March 26, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
makeitendmakeitendmakeitendmakeitendmakeitendmakeitendmakeitendmakeitendmakeitendmakeitendmakeitend
March 26, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink