Franken Legal Team Files Motion For Sped-Up Appeal
The Franken campaign has filed its motion for an expedited appeal with the Minnesota Supreme Court, arguing for a quick response to Norm Coleman's appeal of his defeat in the election trial.
The court is widely expected to grant a fast-tracked appeal, whether it's by the Franken camp's exact requested timeline or in some other way. The proposed schedule from Team Franken calls for Coleman to submit his legal brief by next Monday, April 27, for Franken to submit his brief by Saturday, May 2, and for Coleman to file any new reply by that Monday, May 4, with oral arguments scheduled as soon as possible after those preparations.
The filing cites the election-contest statute itself, and its requirement that the appeal "takes precedence over all other matters before the Supreme Court." Beyond the strict legalese, they also get into the political significance of this whole matter: "Under the United States Constitution, Minnesota is entitled to be represented by two United States Senators. Minnesota has been without its second Senator for more than 100 days."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Franken has the best team by far. Coleman's team is flailing but Franken's people always have a reasoned, well thought out argument, complete with refernces to the relative statutes. I wonder if they have filed to have Coleman put their fees that have been incurred to date in an escrow account yet?
BTW, this sign in system is the lamest on the fucking planet. When it says that my session has expired, I have to reset my password because it won't accept it. FYI, I'm NOT getting the password wrong, I've been using it for years. Something needs to be done about word press fucking up passwords.
April 21, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The amount of attorney fees that Coleman owes Franken ought to be comparatively small (several thousand dollars or so). The election court awarded only the fees that Franken incurred as a result of Coleman's discovery violation. The next step is for Franken to provide an affidavit itemizing those fees. If Coleman has any sense, he'll just pay it.
April 21, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The logging out thing is beyond aggravating, but if you just resubmit it again without even rewriting it, it will probably take it. That is a glitch that should be gone by now. It was a constant problem months ago, and then seemed to get solved. I still have to "re-sign in" but without any hassles. Hopefully yours will get corrected soon, but if you just hit the same thing you did the first time, it should work. Good luck!
April 21, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have the same problem. Over and over again, the sign in is bugged. It goes to the Profile page, and you are stuck there.
Hello??? Firefox anyone? It is a very popular browser, how about fixing the ^%&*%^*&^& thing??
Well np. I fixed it my own way. I almost never sign in and have given up trying to use my "blog" here. You tech guys win! gg
:(
April 21, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, the logon operation sucks big time, but after going through several rounds of having to reset my password I finally discovered this: when you get to the profile page, just don't do anything. At that point, you are logged in, and you can just navigate away from it, and the site will recognize you.
Of course, the other thing that doesn't work about that logon mess is that clicking on the link to return to the page you were reading doesn't work, either. It never takes me to the post I was reading, but to the headline summary for whatever portion of the site I was reading, and then I have to go back and try to find the post all over again, because it has somehow been eliminated from the "recent pages" list in my browser. Maddening!
April 22, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Franken's decision to move for an aggressive schedule. I'm not sure that the MNSCT can require the election court to provide the record by tomorrow though. Minnesota election law (Section 209.10 subd. 4) gives the court 15 days. Granted, the statute says "within" 15 days, so I suppose one could argue that the MNSCT can shorten the time period, but I would expect the MNSCT to be reluctant to tamper with a time period set by statute.
April 21, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The record is already in the same building as the supreme court, so I can't see how it will take "days," let alone 15 days, to provide it.
April 21, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd guess that the physical transport of the record is a relatively short portion of the amount of time required. I would expect most of the time would be involved in producing the record, i.e., doing things like having the court stenographer create transcripts from his or her notes.
I have no idea how long it will actually take the election court to create, certify and file the record. If they have already done the bulk of the work, then perhaps they could finish it by tomorrow. Regardless, though, I would expect the MNSCT to feel bound by time periods specified in the statute. The MNSCT has ample authority to adjust the time periods for briefing (because those time periods are set by rules established by the MNSCT and the rules explicitly allow the MNSCT to alter them in specific cases). Time periods established by the legislature are different though.
April 21, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, it's been a while since the trial ended, and there's no reason for them to wait until now to start putting the record together. I'm sure the court reporters have been hard at work for weeks.
April 21, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds plausible to me. Looking back over the election court's April 14 decision, I notice that the court cited testimony by page number, so the transcripts must already be prepared. I don't know what else the court has to do to prepare the record.
Even if the election court is able to certify and file the record by tomorrow, I still would expect the MNSCT to be reluctant to tamper with a time period established by the legislature. I see no reason, though, that the MNSCT couldn't direct the election court to file the record as soon as possible (but no later than 15 days) and then require briefs within a certain number of days of the filing of the record.
(Also, I don't practice in Minnesota, so its also highly possible that I have no clue WTF I am talking about.)
April 21, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken's filing points out that the transcript has been available to the parties for some time already.
April 21, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Apparently, I didn't look closely enough at the motion. In fact, Franken claims that everything is ready. I'd still phrase the order as I describe below, but if what Franken claims is true then its a purely academic distinction.
April 21, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Within" 15 days is an outer limit, not a target. The Supreme Court would nave no problem ordering an inferior court to comply with the statute by completing its work "within" 15 days by imposing a stricter deadline. It would be purely within the discretion of the Supreme Court to compel.
April 21, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it could be read that way. If I was advising the MNSCT, I'd say that if the legislature said they get up to 15 days then that's what they get if they need it. As I've conceded, though, I don't practice in Minnesota.
April 21, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I want to know is how are these two men supporting their families while this is going on? This must be stressful on their marriages.
April 21, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very good question.
April 21, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Franken has royalties from his books and may have money coming in from rebroadcast appearances. Coleman, OTOH, has supporters who have housed and dressed him -- and paid his wife. Working for a living doesn't seem to be part of Coleman's lifestyle.
I don't think either is hurting financially.
April 21, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next question: Will Franken get back pay once he is seated? He should! It's not his fault he wasn't on the job.
April 21, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he won't get back pay. He wasn't a Senator and he wasn't doing Senate duties. It wasn't the Senate's fault he wasn't seated. It was the result of the incredibly close election and peculiarities of Minnesota law which won't issue a certification until the Supreme Court hears the case.
April 21, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you answering based on what you want to be true, or are you answering from factual knowledge? Your response sounds like the former to me. I wanted to know what the actual rules are.
April 21, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, if you consider "doing Senate duties" as a requirement for pay, everyone in the Senate (or Congress for that matter) who runs for another office, such as President, is most likely not doing that much in the way of "Senate duties." I think pay should begin once the election is declared. The fact that there is a sore loser who is disputing it over and over again doesn't discount the fact that the winner was declared based on votes. The "certification" hold up is political, clearly.
Franken should have been seated weeks ago. Minnesota will re-write their election laws so they will not have to go through this absurdity again. Probably other states should do the same. Elections
April 21, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
April 22, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Franken race has been exhausting to watch. But it's nice to see the power of small is still alive and well in politics- every vote actually does count!
April 21, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you noticed but this site uses Moveable Type not WordPress. But if you want to show your Republican ways go ahead and blame WordPress. Makes sense to me.
April 22, 2009 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink