Minnesota Judges Hand Down Big Batch Of Rulings
The Minnesota election court handed down a whole bunch of rulings this afternoon -- five of them -- addressing topics large and small.
First up for our review here is the real tough one: Their order to fine Team Coleman $7,500 in court costs for having serially hidden evidence surrounding a key witness -- and even the witness herself, for a time -- from the Franken campaign. The Franken camp had asked the court to not only strike this witness, but to dismiss the entire claim of double-counted votes connected to her.
The court's ruling delivers a stern tongue-lashing to Coleman's lawyers for having grossly violated the rules of discovery, but they also explain why they didn't go that far:
Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would be entirely within its discretion to strike the testimony of this witness and the claim to which her testimony relates. However, the Court is mindful of the special circumstances of this election contest. Minnesota has been without a Senator for two months. As the Court has previously recognized, "[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy."
The between-the-lines message is clear: If the court had dismissed this witness and the whole claim, they would have left themselves uncomfortably open to an appeal on the grounds that they were disregarding legitimate factual claims. Even if they were upheld on appeal, it would have just tied the whole case up in legal limbo for even longer.
But, they warned: "In the event this sanction fails to deter future conduct on the part of Contestants' counsel, the Court will not hesitate to impose harsher sanctions, up to and including dismissal."
The court also revisited their February 10 summary judgment ruling to allow 24 rejected Franken-voters in -- though they hadn't actually been counted yet -- reversing themselves on three of them after the Coleman camp argued that the court's February 13 ruling to impose strict standards on the counting of new ballots had to be imposed retroactively. In the grand scheme of things, this seems like a very minimal action on Coleman's effort to either undo the strict standards or else apply them to all 290,000 absentees.
The court also gave these other rulings:
• The court denied Coleman's new attempt to file affidavits from individual voters, in an attempt to get their votes counted.
• The court denied a motion by Duluth City Clerk Jeffrey Cox to either quash the subpoena he's been served by the Franken campaign, or else force Franken to compensative him $1,151.50 for his time traveling to St. Paul. The court quite bluntly stated that Cox has a professional responsibility as an election officer to testify.
• The court also rejected Coleman's request to reconsider a January ruling not to inspect ballots. Unlike other orders from this court, the denial order takes up only one page, summarily announcing the order's existence, with no further explanation given.


















no links to pdf's?
March 2, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Minnesota Court has a link to all the document from this case
here.
March 2, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest rulings are not yet posted at http://www.mncourts.gov/district/2/?page=3408. If they were, I would not have asked.
March 2, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
$7500? That'll learn 'em! I'll bet there's $7500 tied up in that easel display for the media in the courthouse hallway.
March 2, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the court did not strike the claims or the witness, the damage done to Coleman's attorneys' credibility on legal and factual arguments arising from the attorneys' dishonesty taints Coleman's entire case. I'd be furious if I was Coleman.
March 2, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is not to win the lawsuit; the point is to deny the Democrats a seat as long as possible. And Coleman will be rewarded by his cronies for doing so.
March 2, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'd have a much better chance at delaying if the judges took his attorneys seriously. And as unlikely as Coleman's lawsuit seems, 225 votes isn't that huge a margin. Coleman at least had a puncher's chance going in to this case.
March 2, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean that you would be furious if it was YOUR case. I think it is clear that Coleman doesn't give a rat's ass, because it's not his money and he has no intent or expectation of winning this thing, except under the parameters that he and/or his puppetmasters define "winning" as limiting the Dems to 58 rather than 59 votes as long as possible.
March 2, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
These rulings sound like Good News For Norm~!
Or something like that... ;)
JOhn
March 2, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me, the most interesting ruling may be the one that, "The court denied Coleman's new attempt to file affidavits from individual voters, in an attempt to get their votes counted."
This is how pro-Franken voters got the court to agree to count their votes; though they went through the extra step of filing a petition with the MN S. Ct. (which sent it to this court).
So, do Coleman voters have to go through that step as well? And, if so, are they now time barred? Without having seen the motion or the order, though, I may be missing something.
March 2, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was not because the Franken affidavits were filed with the supreme court, it is because they were filed in a timely manner. There are time limits on how long you can wait after an election to bring your case. There were a bunch of affidavits filed earlier but I suspect whatever time they have has passed.
Indeed the order, which is now at the link above says that it is rejected because the Coleman side was given extra time to call election judges, but not given time to seek out additional voter affidavits.
March 3, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm having trouble understanding is why Jeffrey Cox wanted $1,151.50 to travel down from Duluth to M/SP. I can go to London, Paris, or Rome round trip for less than that. Was he going to travel by Barouche Box? Is he claiming that the two hours of his time travelling is worth that much? Otherwise, that's some per diem.
March 2, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. The Duluth DA figures that, including salary + benefits, the guy is worth $60/hr to them. If they are to be deprived of his services, they figure that Franken owes them that $60/hr. And they need Franken to commit to 24 hour blocks of his time, paid in advance. I'll bet that they wanted milage, parking, and hotel on top of that. The DA says that this is necessary because Duluth is having such severe financial difficulties.
It was interesting that the DA herself was able to show up in St. Paul without benefit of being paid said sums in advance to present this motion to the court last Friday. She may have even needed to stay over as the weather was evidently terrible.
P.S. The Duluth DA will never win awards for eloquent, smooth presentations. Her delivery reminded me of some really painful high school speech class presentations.
March 3, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
$7,500? I can scrape up $7,500 and I'm unemployed. What a joke that "sanction" turned out to be.
March 2, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
ha. it ain't cheap keeping a team of footmen in freshly pressed pantaloons!
March 2, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink