Share

Court Declares Franken Winner; Coleman to Appeal

by: Pat Doyle  |  Minneapolis Star Tribune

photo
A three-judge panel in Minnesota has declared Al Franken the winner of the contested US Senate race there. Norm Coleman is expected to appeal. (Photo: AP)

    Three judges soundly rejected Norm Coleman's attempt to reverse Al Franken's lead in the U.S. Senate election late Monday, sweeping away the Republican's claims in a blunt ruling Coleman promised to appeal.

    After a trial spanning nearly three months, the judicial panel dismissed Coleman's central argument that the election and its aftermath were fraught with systemic errors that made the results invalid.

    "The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the Nov. 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately," the panel said in its unanimous decision.

    The panel concluded that Franken, a DFLer, "received the highest number of votes legally cast" in the election. Franken emerged from the trial with a 312-vote lead, the court ruled, and "is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election."

    Speaking to reporters outside his downtown Minneapolis condominium, Franken, flanked by his wife, Franni, said he had "no control" over what Coleman does next but said he would urge his opponent not to appeal, which would delay his certification. "I am honored and humbled by this close victory," he said. "And it's long past time we got to work."

    In an interview earlier in the day, Coleman said he believes "thousands" of rejected votes should have been counted.

    Coleman legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg said the ruling denies many valid votes by applying a stricter standard to determining eligible ballots than local officials applied during the recount.

    "This order ignores the reality of what happened in the counties and cities on Election Day in terms of counting the votes," Ginsberg said, asserting that Coleman must appeal to assure that valid votes are counted. Coleman's lawyers have 10 days to file an appeal with the Minnesota Supreme Court.

    But experts who read the panel's 68-page ruling say it effectively attacks some of the very arguments that Coleman would use on appeal.

    "It is the kind of opinion that is unlikely to be disturbed on appeal by either the Minnesota Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court," said Richard Hasen, an expert on election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "The opinion considers the major arguments made by Coleman and rejects them in a detailed and measured way."

    Added University of Minnesota political scientist Lawrence Jacobs: "This is judicial speak for 'nothing here,' and it is most definitely aimed at the appeals process. It's a signal that they are supremely unimpressed by the Coleman case."

    The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada released a statement Monday night praising the judges' decision but signaling that he would not move to seat Franken in advance of Coleman's expected appeal:

    "Norm Coleman is entitled to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. If he does so, we look forward to a prompt decision from that court so that Gov. Pawlenty can issue an election certificate and we can finally bring an end to an episode that has left the people of Minnesota without full representation for too long and has cost taxpayers too much money."

    Blunt Rejection

    The judges said Coleman, trailing Franken by 225-votes after the recount, wanted the panel to ignore Minnesota election law and adopt a more lenient standard allowing illegal absentee ballots to be counted.

    The panel was blunt in how it dismissed Coleman claims. A cornerstone of his case was the argument that the judges should count absentee ballots they had deemed illegal during the trial because similar ones had been accepted on Election Day and during the recount.

    The panel wrote that Coleman's position would "lead to an absurd result. Following [Coleman's] argument to its conclusion, the court would be compelled to conclude that if one county mistakenly allowed felons to vote, then all counties would have to count the votes of felons."

    Moreover, the panel said that Coleman failed to show that "alleged errors or irregularities regarding the treatment of absentee ballots affected the outcome of the election."

    The panel took aim at some Coleman claims that will likely figure in any appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court or federal court system. One of those was his argument that widespread problems - including varying practices by counties in determining which votes to count - denied many people their right to vote.

    "There is no evidence of a systemic problem of disenfranchisement in the state's election system, including in its absentee balloting procedures," the panel wrote.

    Bitter Battle

    The battle over rejected absentee ballots became the centerpiece of the trial because they provided the best chance for Coleman to find votes to overcome the lead that Franken held after the recount.

    But that battle became bitter after the judges in February rejected Coleman's bid to count as many as 4,800 absentee ballots. The judges said Minnesota law made absentee voting a privilege and set strict eligibility standards for absentee voting to avoid fraud.

    After that ruling, Coleman's lawyers shifted gears and began to attack the legal reasoning of the panel and the practices of state and local elections officials.

    The judges in their ruling confronted those arguments head on, defending the integrity of the state's electoral system in the strongest terms at the very end of their ruling.

    "The citizens of Minnesota should be proud of their election system," they wrote.

    And the judges rejected Coleman claims that Franken netted about 100 votes in Minneapolis after some ballots disappeared and others were counted twice when local officials failed to keep track of damaged original ballots and their duplicates.

    "The court did not hear testimony from any precinct election judge that they duplicated damaged ballots and failed to mark the duplicates or the originals," the judges wrote.

    Regarding the missing ballots, they wrote: "The record contains no allegation or evidence of fraud or foul play with respect to the missing envelope of ballots." The judges said every indication is that the machine totals from the Minneapolis precinct were accurate.

    --------

    Staff writers Kevin Duchschere, Mike Kaszuba, Patricia Lopez and Kevin Diaz contributed to this report.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Republican cry babies

Republican cry babies

Harry Reid needs to grow a

Harry Reid needs to grow a pair and seat Franken now!

Just war tactics. The

Just war tactics. The Repugs know that their chances to win this one are slim to none. But, that doesn't mean that they can't lock this one in the courts as long as possible and deny the Dems another Senate vote. Now Coleman has to decide whether he wants to pit his future career and reputation on gaining his national party a few more weeks of one less Dem Senate vote.

YES!!!! Congratulations

YES!!!! Congratulations Senator Franken!!!!

Interesting that there are

Interesting that there are no press reports that Coleman is a sore loser, as there were for Gore when he requested a recount ... in fact, it seems we read again and again and again during the 2000 Election about "Soreloserman", though no sitting judge at that time dared to defend the integrity of the Florida voting system, with the Supreme Court saying that time limits trumped properly counting votes when handing Bush the White House.

Norm Coleman is the very

Norm Coleman is the very symbol of the degree to which the Republican Party will go to thwart the will of the people who voted honestly for Al Franken! it is unfortunate that Mr. Coleman has so little respect for the democratic process. Appeals should be quickly reviewed/ or not, and the people of Minnesota, should have their Senator, seated. NOW!!

Thank you, good judges of

Thank you, good judges of Minnesota for being rather to the point in refuting Coleman's sketchy, bogus claims for taking this election matter to a higher court. In this case, the people of Minnesota demonstrated that their election laws are fair and just. Normy, honey, find a job and let Mr Franken get on with representing the people of MN.

Republican delay success

Republican delay success while keeping a Dem. out of the Senate. How much difference in the needed 60 would/will Franken make in voting in the Senate?

Another thing -- the party

Another thing -- the party that is always complaining about frivolous lawsuits and sounding off about fiscal responsibility with taxpayers' money, is the party that runs to the courts whenever they think it will benefit them, no matter how absurd their legal argument or how much money it costs the taxpayers! Hypocrites.

Good point about Supreme

Good point about Supreme Court saying time limit trumps. Let's hope Al's lawyer throws that one out if Coleman appeals. ~~ Lane Baldwin - alifewithspirit.org

I have written to both of my

I have written to both of my state's U.S. Senators, demanding that Al Franken be seated NOW. I urge everyone to do the same. The Senate has the power and authority to do this. SO DO IT!

Coleman - it's time. . . Go

Coleman - it's time. . . Go home!

"Harry Reid needs to grow a

"Harry Reid needs to grow a pair and seat Franken now!" To David Lynch I say: let's all e-mail Harry Reid and demand not only that Franklin be seated but that a Federal law be introduced that would put a stop to this kind of nonsense, the very kind of nonsense that allowed George Bush to steal the 2004 election from Al Gore. In matters like this, in national elections, Federal law should be the arbiter, not the shenanigans of individual states. Question: why is it that Democrats are willing to eat their young? (and these people are MY party, folks.)

We should remember that,

We should remember that, immediately after the election, Coleman, with a smaller lead than Franken now has, said that Franken should concede and not waste taxpayers' money on a recount (ignoring the minor fact that the recount was mandatory). Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new for politicians, especially the smug, oh-so-righteous Republicans.

Fascinating case, and I look

Fascinating case, and I look forward both to Mr. Franken taking his seat in the Senate and to further curious litigation by the loser, Mr. Coleman. Ah, the intricacies of the human mind...

Election law needs reform.

Election law needs reform. No more e-voting. No more possibility of hanging chads. Keep it simple and Open. Check a box with a Pen. Done. There should never be any reason for courts to step in.

Funny that the republicans

Funny that the republicans in the senate will soon be nothing but spectators thanks to the judicial process . They dont have the stacked court and the behind the scenes maneuvering they had when they stole the election and put that idiot bush in office. Bob Dylan says it best, ''how does it feel''?

I have written to Coleman,

I have written to Coleman, which is not to say he has read my message, to the effect that continuing to fight this election in court and in the process delay the seating of a senator for Minnesota is bad for his future. If he is doing this at the urging of current republican members of congress then he should realize that they are asking him to ruin his reputation for their short turn gain. Are they going to reward him sufficiently to compensation. I very much doubt it. Loyalty should not trump working of the elector process. TWo vote counts and two courts have declared Franken

I think the correct

I think the correct description is "...smug, oh so self-righteous, republicans..."

I'm a little concerned about

I'm a little concerned about what while happen when this reaches the Supreme Court. I can't help but remember the decision that George Bush president in 2000.

Robert B. is correct β€” the

Robert B. is correct β€” the Senate is the judge of its own elections and returns, and can seat Franken at any time (could, in fact, have seated him long ago). Now would be a good time. Reid's statement indicates that he'll wait for the state Supreme Court but not for a Federal appeal. A Federal appeal would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to usurp authority the Constitution explicitly grants to the Senate. It must not be allowed.