Team Franken To Rest Case Tomorrow
The Franken campaign will be provisionally resting their case tomorrow, lead attorney Marc Elias announced at his post-court press conference today.
A few tasks will remain in sorting evidence -- for example, the Coleman camp is ready to introduce a spreadsheet of rejected ballots that it's pulling for, though Elias doubted this would cause his side to delay resting. It's also possible that they may delay resting if severe weather prevents some witnesses from coming in tomorrow, or if Team Coleman lodges further objections, but again Elias didn't think these were likely.
"So far we've had 73 witnesses -- 62 of them were voters," Elias said. "That's actually more witnesses in our case than they they had in their case, though their witnesses testified for a longer time."
Just a week ago, Elias said their case would take two to three weeks -- but instead, they've only gone for one week. After this, the Coleman campaign will get to wage a rebuttal to the Franken case (Coleman legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg said this would be "not terribly lengthy") and the Franken side will get to make a rebuttal to the rebuttal, followed by closing arguments.
Team Coleman's case previously went for five weeks. The difference can be chalked up to a few things. First, Franken's lawyers were able to cover a lot of ground while cross-examining Coleman's own witnesses, leaving this past week as a period for them to get in their extra points.
Furthermore, the Franken campaign was generally very straightforward and methodical while presenting their case. Some of the votes they've advocated for could be counted, others were obvious duds that they went past quickly, and some were gray areas (which probably won't be counted under the court's strict standards). In short, there wasn't much drama, as there was during the Coleman phase.
And fundamentally, it has to be remembered that the burden of proof is on Coleman to demonstrate that the state canvassing board got it wrong in saying that Franken got more votes, while it's inherently simpler for Franken to play defense.
A reporter asked Elias how he knew this was really coming to an end. He laughed and replied: "Well I certainly hope we're not at the beginning!"
During his own press conference, Coleman legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg continued to question the reliability of the election system, pointing to Minneapolis election director Cindy Reichert's statement that someone changing apartments would have to re-register, but that someone else who was moving could potentially get their ballot counted. "So in terms of meeting consistency for people to have faith in the election result," Ginsberg said, "I think you saw one of those head-scratching moments about the problems in this election, and whether the system is calibrated enough to deal with this."
One thing that should be remembered about Ginsberg's caution about the lack of faith in a super-close election: He worked for George W. Bush's legal team in the 2000 Florida recount.
(Press conference c/o The Uptake.)
Josh
Matt
Eric
Well, this is good news. When they said two weeks last week, I was like WTF. Get it over as quick as possible and that's what they did. Smart move. They are going to win anyway, so don't drag the process out. That would be dumb.
March 10, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are they "provisionally" restign instead of "resting"?
March 10, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, in case the Coleman campaign thinks up another screwy argument at the last minute which requires the Franken camp to come up with a response and call more witnesses. It could happen.
Actually, it probably will happen.
March 10, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are we going to do for entertainment when this case is over?
March 10, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so fast. Also on the agenda before closing arguments:
- The parties will haggle over which of the recently opened ballots with registration cards should be counted, and possibly enter evidence on any in dispute.
- Nauen's petitioners will get a chance to present their case and both Coleman and Franken will get a chance to rebut
March 10, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily. If the pool of possible ballots shrinks to below 225, they don't need to count them.
March 10, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Counting, if it happens, I think will occur after the closing arguments. But I could be wrong.
March 10, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The panel is charged with determining who has the most lawfully cast votes. If the pool of ballots to be counted is less than 225, then they can rule on this without having to count them. They'd certainly be counted later, but the ruling wouldn't have to wait.
March 10, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever else can be said about this whole debacle, the Minnesota process is horrendous and provides an unethical sore loser an inordinately powerful means of keeping the lawful and certified winner of a public office from serving. That needs to be changed.
Al Franken is the Senator. He was duly elected. He should have been serving now for about two months. The people of Minnesota have been denied their voice in the national legislature during this entire period and all because of Coleman's pipe dream of so confusing the public and the court that he might get a redo.
I have never heard of a process in any state that would allow the lawfully elected official to be barred from his/her duty and the people denied their represetnation at the whim of a losing candidate for this length of time.
March 10, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's the way MN wants to do it, its their choice.
March 10, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the circus that's been going on was really a choice of the people of Minnesota.
March 10, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
For as much dissing as MN has gotten over this - I think they've done a great job. Get it done right, rather than fast, even if it means that we get to see Norm being an a$$hat. This decides who the Senator is for the next 6 years and probably more.
And I, for one, would have gladly had the House of Representatives tell SCOTUS to shove it and delay certification of the 2000 presidential election for three months until they were absolutely sure who had won Florida.
March 10, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, except you can get it right and not have the process held hostage to a legal sideshow masquerading as a legitmate claim. That's the problem with this process.
March 10, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed one reason why Franken's case is so much shorter: because Coleman's lawyers did such a good job destroying their own case with their witnesses, even before cross-examination.
March 10, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're begging the question. Al Franken is not yet lawfully elected, not under the current provisions of the relevant statute in Minnesota.
After seeing how the current law may be subject to bad faith manipulation by the losing candidate, Minnesota may well choose to change the point at which a winner, especially for federal office, can be certified. But I think that on the whole, the process has been smooth, orderly, and scrupulously fair, and I congratulate Minnesotans for not letting themselves be stampeded into shortcutting their established process.
March 10, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign, on all counts.
March 10, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it's great that Franken anticipates resting tomorrow, don't think that the answer will appear in any big hurry. Coleman is bringing in a spreadsheet tomorrow and, judging by their previous performance, it will be convoluted, confusing, and generally aimed at mis-direction. Every cell will need to be checked for accuracy, and much will be based on the "how could one even know?" defense. I expect "data" for 1000+ voters from them, probably including previously excluded ballots.
Franken entered evidence for umpteen voters, most in the last week. Some were no-goes where they sat. Those are easy. Some were shoo-ins and, although Coleman will fuss, they're pretty much guaranteed. Difficulties will arise over stuff like if a person moves to apt. 12 from apt. 10, does he really need to re-register? What if it's required in some counties and not in others? Coleman's going to go to town on that subject. In some places they were meticulous about checking the voter registration of absentee ballot witnesses and some weren't. My guess is the judges will go with the counties' requirement standards on that. Based on past performance, I'm betting they will take a generally strict view of eligibility. For instance, a husband and wife each put their ballots in the other's envelope and signed that wrong envelope. Oops, but I bet they'll end up not counting.
So, between the necessity of the judges discussing all the ballots entered into evidence, and it's mind numbing, and the Coleman penchant for smoke, mirrors, and drama, not to mention totally disorganized and confusing submissions, this is going to take a while.
March 10, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may also be that Team Franken anticipates they've won this step, and that any week spent arguing a won case is a week he's not senator. Coleman will keep trying to delay so that Franken's term is shorter. I don't think Coleman's arguing for the benefit of the judges, I think he's hoping to slime Franken so that on the state and national scale they can say he's not legitimate. I'm biased for Franken of course, and can't see how people would vote for Coleman in the first place, so I may be way off base in my assessment that the judges won't do anything crazy.
March 10, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink