After A Long Day, Coleman Camp Brings Back Even More Ballot Challenges
Here's a fun coda to today's exhausting meeting of the Minnesota canvassing board: The Coleman campaign suddenly indicated that it wants to bring back some of their challenges that they'd previously withdrawn -- a development that will probably drag out this process well past the board's original goal of finishing by Friday.
Both campaigns lodged thousands of challenges during the manual recount phase, then withdrew thousands of frivolous ones going into the meeting. But now the Coleman camp wants to take back some of those withdrawals. A very nonplussed board asked why the campaigns would continue to bring challenges, after they'd spent the day establishing clear rules and precedents to figure out which challenges are meritless.
Coleman's lawyer Tony Trimble then explained that the campaign was seeking clarification, after the rulings today hinted that they might be able to win some of their withdrawn challenges. When board members asked if he would also be withdrawing more challenges -- and the Coleman camp already has a little bit under a thousand of them -- Trimble assured the board that this would be under consideration, too.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR NORM!!!
December 16, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Idiotic - you're making me feel nostalgic for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Ah, those were the days...
December 16, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back old friend!
December 17, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me that this isn't exactly going to endear him with the canvassing board. Coleman's desperation is the best indicator that things are going really well for Franken.
December 16, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, they aren't wining any favors!
December 16, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman has decided that playing by the rules will yield a loss. His options dwindling, he has decided that dragging out the recount, even via frivolous challenges, placing the whole recount into disarray, thus into the courts where a precedent exists to stop recounts (Bush v. Gore) is his best bet. Pretty sound strategy--remember Bush was the plaintiff--not Gore. Of course, if the other legal issues force Coleman into a seriously defensive position the Senate could vote (eventually) to not seat him . . . which is less likely than Coleman actually winning the legal strategy game . . . mbb
December 16, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, ya never know with the courts, but there are significant differences here.
There already exists a mechanism for resolving disputed elections -- the Senate itself. And it's been used semi-recently (post-WWII).
Also, a protracted vacancy in one out of 100 Senate seats is not nearly as urgent as the country not having a President.
Still, it's a good thing the court isn't packed with nine Clarence Thomases!
December 16, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 17, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Coleman has decided that if he lets the votes go unchallenged, it's a loss for him, but if he challenges them, there's the possibility to pick off one or two votes. It's a little like a football player committing an obvious defensive pass interference when he knows that to fail to do so probably means a touchdown, and taking the foul at least provides some opportunity to prevent a score.
December 17, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
like the ref can't find his hanky?
December 17, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a good analogy. Or the last two minutes of a basketball game and the one behind is fouling every three seconds.
December 17, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric,
Thanks for stopping by The UpTake today! We'll be live-streaming again tomorrow and showing the ballots for review again in our live-blog. Come by and judge the ballots yourselves!
http://theuptake.org/
December 16, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Supreme Court added a little disclaimer on the end of Bush v. Gore that said
the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. Or have I mis-remembered?
December 16, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a legal question, and I have no knowledge, but isn't any legal decision, in the fact it is thereby case law, an assurance that it will be used in the future? I don't see how, even if that caveat was put in the ruling, it would hold water in future cases.
December 17, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You remember correctly. That little coda was a sure tip off that the SCOTUS knew damn well they had no Constitutional grounds for their decision. Elections are and have always been state matters. It's clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The SCOTUS had absolutely no Constitutional basis for overruling the Florida Supreme Court. They simply wanted Bush to win and accomplished it by fiat. The Equal Protection argument was nothing but a fig leaf.
December 17, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note: if Coleman succeeds in stalling long enough (see Bush 2000 election), the Republican governor can appoint a Senator. Long enough for MN Senators is, by the time the Senate reconvenes next year.
December 17, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Note: if Coleman succeeds in stalling long enough (see Bush 2000 election)"
I know y'all hate me bringing up facts about this subject but Bush won every recount of the ballots. The SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that the final method of recounting (just making shit up, I think was the technical term for it) was illegal.
December 17, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error in FL. Anyone who claims they know who was the winner is either lying or ignorant of the truth.
December 17, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush v. Gore will and must be used as precedent even if the SCOTUS tried to draw a bracket around their opinion.
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/005460.html
The 6th Circuit Court in Stevens v.Blackwell (Ohio) notes this.
Additionally, I agree with the pass interference metaphor above.
As far as whether or not Gore won Florida-- who knows? Who knows if Gregoire won in Washington four years ago? What we DO know is that GOP is much better at vote suppression, successful at tamping down votes in FLA and Ohio in both 00 and 04 (Do I really need to cite this? cuz I think I could only come up with about a couple hundred, starting with Wasserman and Fitzrakis.)
Anyway, Coleman in trouble on a couple of fronts. mbb
December 17, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we do know who won Florida in 2000. Many groups have examined the ballots since then. If a full state-wide recount had been done as the Florida Supreme Court had ordered, Gore would have won.
December 17, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, Gore sued to only have the undervotes counted in specific counties. And even if had won the suit, he would have lost the recount. Bush's suit raised b.s. EP violations, but if the court had followed his logical arguments -- recount all votes (overvotes and undervotes) in all counties -- then Gore would have won. Why? A fair number of people voted for Gore and then wrote him in.
December 17, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
above should read stewart v. blackwell--but if you clicked on the link you already knew that. mbb
December 17, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink