Coleman Camp Proposes Month And A Half Long Schedule For Election Lawsuit
A big question in the Minnesota Senate race has been just how long Norm Coleman and his attorneys intend to fight this whole process out in court. We now have an answer, with Coleman's lawyers filing their proposed schedule for the trial in his election contest -- a schedule that would have the contest by itself last another month and a half from today, without taking into account any potential appeals.
To be specific, Coleman's lawyers are actually proposing a series of separate mini-trials within the overarching trial, testing each of his campaign's various claims of irregularities that unfairly gave Al Franken the win. If this schedule ends up being adopted, and also if the Franken camp were to fail in their current legal efforts to secure a certificate of election in the interim, it would guarantee that Minnesota will be stuck with only one senator for quite a while.
Check out the full list of proposed mini-trials, after the jump.
• Jan. 21: A hearing on the Franken campaign's motion to dismiss the case.
• Feb. 2: A hearing on the Coleman camp's claims about wrongly-rejected absentee ballots that could turn the race around for him, relating to roughly 650 ballot envelopes that local officials around the state say were thrown out correctly.
• Feb. 9: A trial for the ballot envelopes that weren't resolved by the summary judgement above.
• Feb. 16: A trial for the campaign's claims that double-counted absentee votes have illegitimately shifted the outcome of the race.
• Feb. 16: A trial to throw out the decision of the canvassing board to revert to Election Night totals in a deep-blue Minneapolis precinct, after an envelope of 133 ballots was deemed to have gone missing during the recount.
• Feb. 23: A re-challenging of the disputed ballots that the state canvassing board looked through and allocated nearly a month ago, in an effort to throw out votes for Franken and add in votes for Coleman.
• Feb. 23: Another trial for an undefined category of "remaining issues."
Just in case anybody was still in any doubt as to the real goal of this shit. He knows he can't win, but his handlers / funders are the ones who want to drag it out as long as possible to prevent the Dems from having 59 votes in the Senate while Obama's imemdiate agenda is up for consideration.
January 14, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, they've now tipped their hand completely. This is a stalling tactic to prevent one more Dem in the Senate. And frivolous to boot.
Go away, Norman. How can we miss you if you won't go away?
January 14, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can the Senate just expel him and be done with it?
January 14, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate cannot expel Norm Coleman. He is no longer a senator, as his term expired a week and a half ago.
January 14, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately no, because he's not a senator anymore. His term expired last week.
January 14, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the people of Minnesota are going to like this.
January 14, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman might even possibly care about that if he wants to have a political future, but he has no choice- he's under strict marching orders from the folks who pull his strings.
January 14, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not right, the candidate is the one running and has the ultimate say. Coleman can go through with this to no good end, or call it a day.
There may be RNC people playing the part of Wormtongue, but it's Coleman listening to the whispering.
January 14, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norm's problem is that he is out of money and out of a job and he is facing some 'legal difficulties' with several corruption cases pending. Not that he ever had any independence or integrity, but now he has to listen to where money might be.
January 14, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 2: Trial to add 4 days to the month of March.
March 35: Ice Cream Party
April 12: Trial to decide if my wife looks hot laying on a pile of illegal contribution cash.
Dec. 1: Trial to add 150 days to December.
Dec 181: Trial to decide next year's trial schedule
January 14, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
January 14, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can each of these "mini-trials" be appealed independently? If so.....this thing could last forever.
January 14, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were a judge, I'd be tempted to compel the Minn. Sec. State to give Al his certificate. This isn't Norm's election, it's the state's election, and I'd tend to be intolerant of his antics.
But what I'd want to know more about would be, is there precedent for the Senate to seat some guy, then find out for some reason months late he didn't really win, kick him out, and what happens to the bills where he voted and his vote was determinative. If there's some sort of orderly outcome to those questions, I'd be tempted to get him seated.
January 14, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an example for the surreal and anti democratic Conservatives Without Conscience posing as Republicans for the corporate plutocracy.
Problem is Minnesota, even Minnesotan GOP'ers have a vested interest in having a working US Senator.
My guess is that the three-panel judiciary have a different timetable in mind. It could be summed up with Franken's first motion. My experience with judges is that they don't like this kind dis-genuineness.
They could rule to dismiss and let Coleman try to delay this up the appeals channel on the express train to private citizenship.
January 14, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I just posted above on the same lines. Let Norm take it to appeal, while Al moves up to the hill. (Norm's already a private man, BTW.)
January 14, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honor the damn Constitution and seat Franken....
Minnestoa is entitled to TWO Senators.
Furthermore the Constitution clearly states the only "credentials" needed for a Senator are....
-he/she be elected: which the Canvassing Board certified. True, MN law requires the signatures for certification. Federal law does not, nor does the Senate. Furthermore the Senate sets their own rules. They can honor the Canvassing Board's decision if they so choose.
--Second, he/she "attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen." That's it. No mention of credentials, certifications, signatures or the like. This is argument used by IL SoS for not signing Burris' certificate. The IL Supreme Court backed up this decision saying the signatures where not needed. (Yes, I understand that is IL not federal law- however, the arguments are essentially the same and I would expected the US Supreme Court to back this up in Franken's case as well).
--Third it mentions the Senate sets it's own rules, in this case the rules of the 110th Senate are already in place.
About those rules......
Under current Senate rule 3: they "recommend" the Gov. and Sos sign the certificate of Election. Furthermore the Sec. of the Senate is to record and file this Certificate. A recommendation is not a rule. Nor is recording and filing, especially given there is no rule on when it should be filed.
Screw MN law- it's federal law that guides the Senate and it appears, in mho, that there is NO reason Franken cannot be seated.
MN can still certify the election and I think they should. However, as argued above there is not reason, no law, no rule that states Franken can't be seated.
SEAT FRANKEN, so says this MN voter.
January 14, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A signature and countersignature have been a requirement for 125 years. What you're saying is that you understand the Senate rules better than the Senate and that they've been doing it wrong for 125 years. Maybe you should write to them and let them know. I'm sure they'd appreciate being set straight.
January 14, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've been following a recommendation for 125 years. Say what you will, it's a recommendation. I'm saying that Franken could take this to the U.S. Supreme Court and win.
Furthermore, there is a precedent: the 1969 Supreme Court decision for Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, in which the court ruled that Congress could not arbitrarily bar members who otherwise meet the Constitution's age, residency and citizenship status.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-senate12-2008dec12,0,3224027.story
"'The Constitution does not vest in the Congress a discretionary power to deny membership by majority vote," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren. Congress may "judge only the qualifications set forth in the Constitution,' he said."
The qualifications are minimal. A senator must be at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen and "an inhabitant" of the state.
....Warren said in his opinion that the Senate's power over its members "is identical" to that of the House"
January 14, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Powell was certified. As I suggested, maybe you should write to the Senate and correct their error. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.
January 14, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd appreciate it if you're attitude wasn't so shitty.
January 14, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just seems more than a little preposterous for you to insist that you understand the Senate rules better than the US Senators.
January 14, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? It's clear they don't. Words have legal meaning. Recommendation does not mean requirement. Any court in the country would agree.
January 14, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please point me to the part in Rule II where is says "recommendation".
January 14, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rule 3. Rule 2 is regarding appointments.
January 14, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
er, sorry Rule II, section 3.
January 14, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"recommended forms" The forms are optional. The signatures are not.
January 14, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rule III specifies the oath. Rule II is about credentials.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/
And it doesn't say "recommend" it says "shall". From section 2 of Rule II:
(emphasis mine)They've been interpreting it in this way for 125 years.
January 14, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read that as well. Again, it never says when they need these recorded. If Franken wanted to take this to the Supreme Court, he, just like Burris, would have a case, and probably would win.
January 14, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier said White's signature was not needed for Burris to be seated in the Senate.
"We note ... that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the 17th Amendment must be signed and sealed by the state's secretary of state. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supersede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution. Under these circumstances, the Senate's actions cannot serve as the predicate for a mandamus action against the secretary of state. The only issue before us is whether the secretary of state, an official of this state, failed to perform an act required of him by the law of Illinois. He did not."
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/state-court-rebuffs-burris-on-senate-signature.html
I would argue the same goes for the governor as well.
January 14, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
3. The Secretary of the Senate shall send copies of the following recommended forms to the governor and secretary of state of each State wherein an election is about to take place or an appointment is to be made so that they may use such forms if they see fit.
THE RECOMMENDED FORMS FOR CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION AND CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION FOR SIXYEAR TERM
To the President of the Senate of the United States:
January 14, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and yes I realize appointments and elections are different. I'm looking at the opinion regarding the Senate rules. The signature argument is bogus, it was bogus re: Burris, and it's bogus now. Tradition not withstanding.
January 14, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I've never said I understood them better than anyone. That was you projecting that upon me. I have admitted the Senate has been pretty clueless- how else do you Feinstein saying this, Reid and Durbin that, Klobuchar that, Cronyn this, etc. They do not understand their own rules.
Or, perhaps, the rules are deliberately somewhat vague.
One thing that's not vague:
The Constitution- there is not one word about a certification, a signature, credentials, or anyother B.S.
The Constitution is quite clear though- every state is to have TWO Senators.
Where's MN's second Senator?
January 14, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rules of the Senate clearly say signing the certificate of election is recommended.
"Requirement" is nowhere in the language.
Regarding Senators understanding there rules: It's pretty clear most senators do NOT understand the rules- How else do explain all the bullshit arguments we've heard since Nov. 4th about seating members? Reid and Durbin it's not okay to seat Burris. Feinstein it is. Amy Klobuchar- seat Franken provisionally. Cronyn- no you can't. It's really pretty obvious they do not understand their rules, or- more likely, would rather use the rules to their own political advantage. So if they can- so can I, so can Franken.
The language of the Senate rules is the language of their rules. A recommendation is not a requirement. Seat Franken.
January 14, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks it's time to start flooding Harry Reid's mailbox with emails in support of seating Al. This bullshit should be all the reason he needs. Those bastards will try to keep this going for a year if they can get away with it.
January 14, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
January 14, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's footing the bills for these challenges? Is it the candidates themselves or are the parties still involved?
Would 58 Dems vs 59 Dems make any difference really for the first 100 days? A
January 14, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now could be the perfect time for more information to come out about Coleman, Coleman's wife and the sugar daddy Nasir Kazeminy. Maybe Kazeminy will buy Norm another new suit to wear before the MN Supreme Court?
January 14, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is his proposal - but presumably it would have to be approved by a court. And I can't imagine any judge allowing week after week of mini-trials, that's just a bizarre procedure (not to mention a ridiculous waste of time). It's one case - seems like they should set one trial date (if it gets that far).
January 14, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be very easy to make this all go away.
Granted. End of story.
January 14, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey all (including you Mr. Kleenfeld). While the odds are that Al Franken will win the Legal Contest and be seated as Minnesota's junior Senator, there is, nevertheless, a chance that Norm Coleman could prove victorious before the 3 judge panel. IT AIN'T OVER TILL ITS OVER BABY!!!! And given that the Minnesota election laws governing a Legal Contest do not allow for much, if any, legal "hanky-panky", it is almost certain that who ever wins the Legal Contest will win "fair and square". Do not expect any partisanship from the judges either on the panel or on the Minnesota Supreme Court -- this isn't Florida.
For those of you who do not understand Minnesota and its traditions of open and honest elections, I recommend "The Irresistible Force Meets the Immovable Object: Minnesota's Moralistic Political Cultural Confronts Jesse Ventura, an essay that published in the Summer 2000 issue of Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The title of that volume is: "Minnesota: A Different America?" and is well worth reading.
By the way, Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (a Democrat) was named 2008 Minnesota Politician of the Year by Politics in Minnesota (published by a long-time Republican operative). I have READERS POST providing background info on Ritchie's award.
January 14, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I propose that the US Senate take the money that would otherwise be used to pay Minnesota's junior senator, his staff and their office expenses in the interim (however long it takes to seat Franken) and send it to Patrick Fitzgerald's office in Chicago so he can staff up and finally get around to indicting the governor of Illinois. Maybe put a little taste aside for Colorado's governor for actually meeting the deadline on his appointment too.
January 14, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seriously doubt if the 3 Judge Court will split up the case into mini-trials. I think they will want to move along, and advise the various camps to be prepared to present their evidence in a fairly short window. What may complicate the schedule is that a number of Franken Voters whose votes were not counted -- I think it is over a hundred voters -- have independently sued to have their ballots opened and counted. As of today some Coleman Voters have also announced they will sue over double counting. It will be up to the Judges whether they deal with these seperately or as part of Coleman's main case.
Franken's motion to dismiss will probably sit on the table until the Coleman case, (has the burden of proof) is complete. Franken's lawyers will have the ability to cross examine during the presentation of Coleman's case -- and if there is no evidence that survives, then the motion to dismiss would be in order. If Coleman's case survives that motion, then Franken presents a defense, or rebuttal case.
January 14, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Strib story on the suit by Coleman voters:
No evidence, but there could be hundreds. Yeah, this suit is going a long way.January 14, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It comes down to whether Coleman's limited data set is to be taken as all of his evidence or as the tip of an iceberg. Coleman needs a strong theory to support the latter, not mere "could be but I cannot say how it would be so".
At some point this case comes down to attrition, unless both sides have effectively infinitely deep pockets.
January 14, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman may have some valid legal points but he's surely not making his case look good at any step of the way. And I'm confident that the Court will throw out some of his petitions.
I think if Franken were pursuing an election contest, it would look and be cleaner. Franken seems to know where comedy is appropriate and where it is not.
January 14, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm torn by this. Do I want Norm to go deeper in debt to his lawyers by dragging this out or do I want Franken seated sooner? This obviously won't cost me any sleep.
January 14, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink