Team Coleman Filing Appeal Today
On a conference call with reporters just now, the Coleman legal team announced that they are formally filing their notice of appeal today with the state Supreme Court, and will now await an order from that court to have briefs submitted and to schedule oral arguments.
"We do believe that the district court got it wrong on the law," said legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg, "and wrong because the Minnesota tradition and law are to enfranchise people, and their decision disenfranchises many Minnesotans, whose votes have been wrongly rejected."
Coleman attorney Jim Langdon laid out the campaign's hopes at the state Supreme Court -- that the state Supreme Court is not bound by the same rules as the trial court, but can instead make and clarify those rules.
"We think that the contest court may have felt constrained by some of the older Supreme Court cases -- 1975, 1937, some other cases -- and as a lower court wasn't about to say that the Supreme Court cases didn't apply here," Langdon explained. "However, the Supreme Court itself can make it clear that those cases involved very distinct circumstances that aren't applicable here. And as a result, they don't govern this action, and the constitutional issues -- equal protection and due process -- do."
Langdon predicted that the court might set a schedule to hear arguments in anywhere from two weeks to two months. "In normal circumstances, with a typical civil case, the process could take anywhere from three to eight months," he said. "So this is -- whatever they choose will be very expedited."
Langdon also explained the process, and how the notice of appeal will briefly lay out which issues will be appealed, which will then be expanded upon in the later briefs: "It's essentially the same issues as were at trial, only focused on the constitutional arguments."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Coleman went on to say where donors can leave their donations to his defense fund.
April 20, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're all supposed to leave blank checkx under his doormat, so Franken can't hack his website again.
April 20, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Click here if you want to help Al (and all Progressives in MN).
April 20, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can only hope the SCOMN clears the decks and schedule the oral arguments to begin as soon as humanly possible. Even if the Coleman campaign cares little for the having the citizens of Minnesota being fully represented in Congress, hopefully the state supreme court justices are aware of the pressing need.
April 20, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, ya gotta love the part where Coleman's lawyer explains that if the state Supreme Court takes two months to begin hearing this case, that would be quick, really. And not at all another unwarranted delays keeping an elected Democrat out of the Senate.
I hope the court sees that they have no legal basis for appeal, and smacks it down right away.
April 20, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be nice, but I doubt that will happen. They do need to move ahead with all speed and reject any delaying tactics from the Coleman side under threat of serious sanction.
April 20, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if there really are no new points, the MN Supreme Court could simply refuse to hear the appeal. Why would that strengthen Norm's Federal case? The Federal case must rely on the Constitution or Federal law, insofar as they apply, not on MN law, so resolution of MN issues would not really matter, either way. Moreover, the MN Supremes' dismissal of an appeal would not be a dodge, legally: it would be a statement that the judges saw no procedural justification for the appeal in the first place: it's not a weaker action than hearing it, it's a stronger one, really.
April 20, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an appeal as of right under Minnesota election law.
April 21, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! That settles it ;-)
April 23, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know if the law allows them to read the trial record and then just decline to hear the appeal? In all justice that's what ought to happen.
April 20, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
They could, but realistically, they won't. All that would do is to give Coleman more ammunition for a federal appeal.
I doubt very much that this will drag on that much longer. The contest court did a good job of addressing all the points of law, so there really isn't much to argue about. The MN-SC is going to say they were right or they're going to say they were wrong, but either way, I don't see a long drawn out process.
April 20, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there would be serious due process problems if they didn't at least allow the parties to submit briefs. I think it would be appropriate for them to hear the case without oral argument, which could shave a couple weeks off the time frame. (Oral argument is largely a waste of time anyway; it mostly just lets the lawyers show off in front of their clients.) They'll probably allow oral argument though.
April 20, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would a Minnesota SC review and decision to reject cert raise 'due process' considerations? The 'due process' consists of review by the justices to decide whether the appeal raises any issues worthy of review. If the justices determine that no such issues exist, and that the claims in Coleman's brief are spurious, it would entirely fulfill Coleman's due process rights to review the appeal and deny cert.
Remember, this is an appeal, which must raise significant procedural or constitutional issues, not just rehash the trial court's decisions. It's not about Coleman 'having his day in court': he's had his day, and lost.
April 21, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a discretionary appeal; Minnesota election law provides for an appeal as of right to the MNSCT from contests of statewide elections. This, the Court can't resolve it by simply denying certiorari (i.e., denying leave to appeal).
At it's core due process requires two things: notice and an opportunity to be heard. If the Court were to deny Coleman even the opportunity to brief his argument, then it would deny him an opportunity to be heard. I think the Court can allow briefs and deny oral argument, or it could just have oral argument and deny briefs, but it has to give the parties some chance to be heard.
(I can't envision the Court wanting to decide this appeal on oral argument without briefs. On a matter with this much publicity, the Court will need to write an opinion and that is MUCH harder without proper briefing.)
April 21, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
let's just hope the state supreme court feels this case deserves to be treated with a little more urgency than the 3 to 8 months coleman is hoping for.
April 20, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you love how Ginsbug takes great pains to treat the three contest court judges like they were children trying to wear their mommy's and daddy's pants?
April 20, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? They actually paid attention to precedent and they wouldn't be activist judges?
Can't a Republican count on anything? It must be a scurrilous judicial plot to uphold election law.
April 20, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the, the lower court followed you guys on the MN Supreme Court too much angle. Is that really what camp Coleman is going to hang their hats on?
Is "those fools listened to you!" really a good argument to make the the court should do a 180 on itself?
April 20, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appeal documents now posted on the court's website. Same old same old. Hopefully this bit of Kabuki theater will have its last act shortly.
April 20, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is like a basketball game where the the team down by 10 points is still fouling hoping to win with 10 seconds left.
They will run out of players.
Say the referees jobbed them.
Want more time put on the clock.
April 20, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like they're standing around on the court saying that the rules they played under are inherently unfair, and that each player should get seven fouls instead of five.
April 20, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
they have time limits in baseball? Who knew?
April 20, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a serious question about how this case now stands. Why hasn't Pawlenty issued an election certificate to Franken? The Election court ruled over a week ago that Franken won. At that point Pawlenty was obligated to issue the certificate, even if provisionally. While we all know Norman was going to appeal, there was no certainty. How long is Pawlenty allowed to stand around and diddle waiting for Norman to file his appeal?
Enlighten me please.
April 21, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, Pawlenty is on solid ground in not issuing the election certificate yet. Cases interpreting Minnesota election law hold that the certificate isn't to issued until the time for appeal expires (which also suggests that the certificate shouldn't be issued while an appeal is pending).
Things become murky if Franken wins before the MNSCT and Coleman petitions for certiorari from the SCOTUS. In a prior opinion in this case, the MNSCT stated that the certificate should issue once the state process is complete. To me, that means that Pawlenty should issue the certificate without delay once the MNSCT rules (unless the SCOTUS enters a stay which I think would be difficult to justify). Pawlenty, however, hasn't indicated what he will do. I suppose one could argue that appeal to the SCOTUS is the culmination of the state process (as opposed to a collateral civil rights action in federal court).
April 21, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink