The Importance of Being Franken
If you're a regular reader, you know that Eric Kleefeld's done a remarkable job tracking the ins and outs and absurdities and melodramatics of the court fight that may or may not settle the disputed election between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
While that case is being decided, though, it's worth reflecting on the significance of Minnesota's junior senate seat--about how important that seat might have been if Franken had won a more decisive victory (or if the recount hadn't taken so long), and how things will change when that victory is finally affirmed. Indeed, Franken himself may prove more important to advancing President Obama's agenda than will just about any other single issue.
Earlier this month, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel basically gave that game away. In an interview with the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, Emanuel argued that stimulus critics like Paul Krugman were misplacing their focus. "No disrespect to Paul Krugman," Emanuel went on, "but has he figured out how to seat the Minnesota senator?"
Leaving Krugman out of this, how can one man (Franken) make such a difference? Well, consider the stimulus bill. It passed the Senate after a group of centrists had pared it down enough to suit the arbitrary tastes of Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter, who ultimately voted to end debate and pass the legislation. Only two of them were absolutely necessary, though, and if Franken had been seated, Democrats would have needed only one. That would have been a much easier task than winning all three, or even two, and probably would have meant fewer cuts and concessions when what the bill needed was more and more spending.
And, of course, there will be other fights. What ultimately goes into the budget is still an open question--but if it leads to a reconciliation process, and if Democratic leaders put one or more of Obama's main priorities into the resulting bill, they will not only draw the ire of Republicans. They'll face opposition from within their own party.
A reconciliation bill only needs 51 votes to pass, but at the same time it can in theory be extremely controversial. Vice President Dick Cheney cast a tie-breaking reconciliation vote in December 2005 at a time when Republicans held 55 seats in the Senate. And in recent days several Democrats have signaled that they might vote against a reconciliation bill if it contains big ticket items like health reform and climate change legislation. If they stick to their guns, Franken's vote could be key.
Then there are the banks. The Obama administration has decided upon a controversial plan for bailing out the country's major, ailing financial institutions, that involves partnering with smaller institutions to buy distressed assets and then backstopping most of their potential losses. The story behind that plan is deeply complicated, but one important element of it is that many other options (most notably nationalization) would probably have required congressional action--and that means, ultimately, a 60-vote supermajority.
Writing in The Week, economist Brad DeLong addressed this very issue:
Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio is the sixtieth vote in the Senate--the one required to close off debate, avoid a filibuster and move to a vote on final passage of a bill. If the Obama administration wants to do anything that requires legislative action, it needs Voinovich and 59 other senators on board. The White House's legislative tacticians appear to think that 60 senators are not on board--especially after last week's AIG scandal. The Geithner Plan is something the administration can do on authority it already has. Doing more would require a congressional coalition that, at present, does not exist.
The situation's actually worse than that. Because, of course, even when they're all whipped together, Democrats don't have 59 votes. They have 58.
All of which is to say that our (Eric's) coverage of the Franken-Coleman imbroglio has great significance beyond courtroom drama and partisan grudges. It has (and will continue to have) great meaning to most of the issues we cover here at TPMDC. So don't let the relative quiet fool you. It's the Democrats' most pressing issue and, ironically, the issue over which they have the least power.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Great read, Mr. Beutler. This Minnesotan salutes you!
March 27, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
Rahm and Brad are spot on. The politics of this are important. We need 60.
Coleman has no hope of winning, but can stall our agenda in the Senate.
For the love of god, Minnesotans, please end this fiasco!! Concerted politic pressure -- angry mobs that follow Norm everywhere -- can be very effective. I think apathy of the citizenry is enabling these shenanigans. (And the GOP would never had allowed this. Imagine the non-stop Fox-Rush-blog mania if a Democrat was dragging out a lost election for half a year!)
Thank you TPM for not ignoring this huge, but forgotten, issue.
March 27, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we need is for the FBI to move along with alacrity on its investigation of Coleman's part in the illegal payments to his wife that is working its way through the Texas suit. Coleman cannot be a senator from federal prison. Franken will be a great senator, taking back the Wellstone seat.
March 27, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It could not be more obvious that delay is the Republican plan here. There will be endless appeals if the Republicans have their way. Count on no approval of a certificate of election from Pawlenty. Count on the Coleman lawyers repeating their election court testimony, where five weeks were needed to put on essentially no case. The only good news is that Franken may need none of that. Following the appeal to the MN Supreme Court, state law evidently says that the case goes directly to the Senate (http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/26/7640/coleman_v_franken_will_the_threejudges_report_to_the_senate). Reid has hinted that he would use his authority (I know, I know, ...) to seat Franken. No certificate needed. So, that could be as soon as the end of April or so. Expect historic wailing from the Republicans, and we'll see if our "moderate" Democrats have any balls at all. However, the end could be soon enough to make a difference.
The alternative is a resignation. If there are 98 senators, not 99, then cloture is 58 not 60. There is at least one senator who is reportedly under investigation in connection with his appointment.
March 27, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully, when the MN appeals (first round?) are over, the Supremen Court will order the issuance of the certificate.
March 27, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not holding my breath waiting for Senator Reid to get any kind of backbone soon. If he does actually seat Franken, that will be a miracle.
March 27, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the national or Senate Democrats doing to expedite the decisions on Minnesota? It's clear that the Republicans are pulling out all the stops to delay it, especially financially, and Coleman is milking the opportunity.
March 27, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, this is perhaps a bit off-topic, but haven't a number of Republican Congresspeople announced that they would support bank nationalization? If that's the case, then why would it be so hard to get to 60 on the issue?
Although it's going to be just a little surreal to have Stuart Smiley...um, I mean Al Franken in the Senate, I think it'll be great to have another thoroughly liberal voice (and vote!) there.
March 27, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"OK, this is perhaps a bit off-topic, but haven't a number of Republican Congresspeople announced that they would support bank nationalization? If that's the case, then why would it be so hard to get to 60 on the issue?"
I've only heard of one in the House, not the Senate. Finding 60 in the Senate is much harder. The House is really a non-issue.
We'll have a test case with Geithner's request for new powers. He (or the FDIC) would need those to actually take over these banks. If everyone is for nationalization, they'd agree to give the government powers to take over an AIG, Citi or whoever.
March 27, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's see. Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy both won't last long. Either or both may be gone by the time we get Senator Franken onto the floor. And Byrd's replacement could well be a Republican.
These politicians--both Reid and the sell-out Democratic rump--are playing us for fools. Where are the two million Americans who so hopefully stood in the freezing cold in January, expecting change?
We've got to go back, in warmer weather. Carrying pitchforks. People have to get into the streets and squares and stay there until the politicians catch on or until they send in the troops. As we saw in St. Paul last September during the Crime Family Convention, the people who REALLY wield power in this country will not hesitate to use overwhelming force against small numbers of protesters. We need millions.
March 28, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
the longer this drags on, the worse it is not just for Minnesota but for the country.
When the hell is this (this phase, at least, I know an appeal is coming) going to be over? What's taking so long? I'm concerned about that, because in my more paranoid moments I wonder if there isn't some intentional judicial foot-dragging going on.
Maybe someone can console me as to the normal amount of time it takes to render a decision in a case like this. Jeez, it didn't take courts down in Florida in 2000 any time at all, now, did it?
March 28, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typical civil cases can be in litigation for years. This is a bullet train in the grand scheme. If the judiciary were "foot dragging" they could have set the pre-trial calendar to end in 2011.
The baseless suspicion of the MN judiciary in these threads, when they've done nothing but conduct themselves with due haste, alacrity and impartiality, is tiresome.
March 28, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one knows how long it will be before the three judge panel issues its decision. However, expect nothing soon. The panel indicated during the trial that it will re-examine some 900 disputed votes; these will have to be collected from various counties and brought to St. Paul, a process which will require at least four days' advance notice to the Sec. of State's office, just in order to collect and transport the ballots. Then probably a week to examine them; perhaps longer.
It is impossible to predict whether the court will rule in Franken's favor or for Coleman. Anyone who predicts it one way or the other does so at their peril. Judges in election law cases often disregard law, precedent, and logic . . . as was so amply demonstrated in Bush v. Gore. The three judges on this case are no doubt as good as any, and unlikely to let partisanship affect their deliberation. But election law cases follow no rhyme or reason, as Richard Winger has faithfully documented with "Ballot Access News" over many years.
March 28, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis, thank you. However, I think we're all overlooking what is perhaps an even more important outcome of the seating of Sen. Franken:
It will make Michele Bachmann's head explode.
Seriously, wouldn't you just LOVE to be in the same room with Ms. Batshit Crazy and Al Franken when the MN Congressional delegation gets together?
March 28, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does there ever come a point when there are penalties put on Coleman for blocking Franken's rightful victory? It's ludicrous and offensive that Coleman's legal team can just keep making up frivolous claims, with no disincentive to make them stop.
Jeez, Dems, make some noise about this already. Try looking like you actually want Franken to be seated.
March 28, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone understand what is taking the Minnesota court so long to make a decision? I thought that it would be handed down by now. Its going to be appealed anyway.
March 28, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They need to make thousands of findings of fact.
March 29, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will Franken be seated if he wins the trial court decision and then it is appealed? This could be drawn out all the way to the Supremes, where you have Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas at minimum ready to do or say ANYTHING that promotes a RW agenda. On the other hand, Kennedy would do or say ALMOST anything.
My faith in the court system in the US knows no bounds
March 29, 2009 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Franken-Coleman contest is a teaching moment. First, the Uptake has given us a chance to follow a real civil trial up close, not what we see in movies or tv. Second, we have been reminded of the importance of an independent judiciary. Already in 1651, Hobbes was arguing the state had a role to play in protecting participant in the market economy against expropriation by thieves, unscrupulous competitors, or tortfeasors (i.e. people we modernly refer to as "Republicans"). Of course, the foremost role of the courts is non-violent conflict resolution, but assuring against powerful agents imposing disruption costs on society is a very close second.
March 29, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Although it's going to be just a little surreal to have Stuart Smiley...um, I mean Al Franken in the Senate,"...
Surreal? SURREAL?!? Listen, pal, maybe you're not old enough to remember this but about 25 years ago or so, there was this guy who was once second-billed after a chimpanzee in a B-movie called 'Bedtime for Bonzo' who was actually serving as the FREAKIN' PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and you're disconcerted with the prospect of Senator Al Franken?!?
You don't know from surreal!
SHEESH!!!
March 30, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink