Judges Selected For Minnesota Election Lawsuit
The three judges who will be presiding over Norm Coleman's lawsuit to contest the Minnesota election result were just appointed this evening, hailing from all over the state both geographically and in terms of their political backgrounds:
• Judge Elizabeth Hayden from Stearns County (St. Cloud), an appointee of former Democratic Gov. Rudy Perpich.
• Judge Kurt Marben of Pennington County, in the state's rural northwest, an appointee of former Gov. Jesse Ventura.
• Judge Denise Reilly of Hennepin County (Minneapolis), who was first appointed by former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson.
The appointments were made by state Supreme Court Justice Alan Page.
This proceeding will use a three-judge panel format. This is for a good reason: A single judge would be too powerful to decide matters of law and fact in a case like this, while on the other hand a jury would obviously be a very flawed way to solve a disputed election.
make norm stop.
January 12, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the possibility they will recognize Coleman is doing nothing more than playing out the clock for no other reason than of pure spite - pure political maneuvering without cause or substance? One can only hope they aren't willing to be puppets in Coleman's farce.
January 12, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beetlejucie. Why would you even raise the idea whether three judge panel might "be willing to be puppets in Coleman's farce". Your comment is very disrespectful of the Minnesota judicial system and is totally uncalled for. This aint Florida baby.
January 12, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've every right to your opinion, but I find the question cogent. So far the MN. courts have shown themselves to be fair, and I don't see anything in Beetlejuice's question that implies otherwise.
One CAN only hope after all that's happened in recent years.
So what do ya' think. Will they see this crap for what it is, or not?
January 12, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I have found the MN process to be quite orderly and thorough, working through the individual decisions of the merits of each contested ballot within the laws and spirit of the law. MN reminds me of how WI and IA focused on insuring that voting process was paramount and the decision was the by-product of the process.
A three judge panel will be on the hook where every legal mind interested will watch as they go through the process that Coleman & Co. will have to show cause. The key point that Judge Page stated was the decisions (or consensus there of, with a opportunity for dissent), as a matter of law that eventually will be appealed to the MN Supreme Court and possibly to the Fed Court process.
There is no apparent partisanship since one is a Dem appointment, one a GOP and one an Independent. I am certain some research will be given to the particular jurist personalities but since I have personally known State and Fed judges this is probably one of the top cases and the probability is that they will know that they are on the historic hook for making the best legal decision.
January 13, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think a jury is a flawed way to resolve any dispute. In fact, I think it is the best way to resolve disputes in a court.
January 12, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. Did you look at the contested ballots on line and the way people "voted" about if the vote should go to one of the candidates or no one? It was clear that a small, but still significant, proportion of the "votes" were more in line with who that person wanted to win the election. I would hate to see members of a jury do the same, ignoring the facts in order to support their preferred outcome. The "I want X" responses were not limited to either Republicans or Democrats, but appeared on both sides.
Hopefully, a panel of judges could be more dispassionate. No guarantees, but I have a certain amount of faith.
January 12, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
bushvgore
January 12, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aris Isotoners, Bruno Maglis.
January 13, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
tooophilite
You state: "It was clear that a small, but still significant, proportion of the "votes" were more in line with who that person wanted to win the election." Certainly was not clear to me. Do you have any specifics. I what the process a bit (for several hours) and what I saw were three people trying very hard to determine "voter intent" when that intend was not always clearly recorded. In one or more of the FEW occasions when was not a consensus among members of the Canvassing Board about a voters intent, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (a Democrat) cast the tie breaking vote in favor of Coleman (a Republican). There has been an attempt by some wing-nuts to discredit the election by charging that the Canvassing Board acted in a partisan manner. If you yourself have reason to believe that the process was tainted by all means "spill the beans". But if you don't have reasons, then isn't it unfair to the 1,000s individuals in Minnesota who worked to ensure electoral integrity.
January 12, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong target, stephen. I believe toxophilite was not referring to the Canvassing Board procedures but to the Star Tribune on-line post of photos of the disputed ballots. Hundreds or even thousands of viewers clicked on the Star Trib's choices of how to assign each of the disputed ballots. In most of the cases, there was a clear majority for one candidate or another to receive any particular disputed ballot---but even where the voter intent was clear beyond any reasonable dispute, a small percentage of viewers still voted, apparently, for the candidate they favored rather than for the one who deserved the vote. It seemed to have been toxo's opinion that if one or more of those too-partisan zealots were to be on a jury weighing the issues in this case, then they would skew the outcome---at the least, by hanging the jury. Although in Minnesota, juries in SOME lawsuits don't need to be unanimous (I'm not sure where this recent change in the law applies in civil suits.) Naturally, judges can be biased also, as was demonstrated in Bush v Gore; according to law clerks, all five votes for "selecting" Bush were set before the justices ever heard the arguments.
January 13, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an attorney (as you can tell by my stylish suit and big nose) and, trust me, a jury would be a TERRIBLE idea. Juries are nuts! They can all too easily talk themselves out into left field. An issue like this needs to be in front of people who are trained in and understand the law.
A three-judge panel, politically and geographically balanced sounds just right. That way, when Coleman gets his ass handed to him, he won't be able to credibly cry "BIAS!"
January 12, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Eric could have been clearer by stating that the 3-judge panel is a good idea -- because it is called for by Minnesota election law. There are no other options.
January 12, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please let them tell the inbred jack_hole that is NORman that his case is wholly without merit . . .
January 12, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um... jack_hole? There are holes for...? No. Kidding, right? Of course, you are.... Never mind...
January 12, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink