Coleman v. Franken

By GottaLaff

First, here is where we stand as of today:

The Minnesota Supreme Court heard an hour of arguments on whether absentee ballot problems justify reversing a lower-court ruling that declared Al Franken (D) the winner over Norm Coleman (R) in last year's U.S. Senate race, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The hearing concluded with a justice saying "a decision will be forthcoming" -- offering no indication how long that process could take.

Rick Hasen: "There's no question that Coleman's side got much tougher question than Franken's side, and based upon oral argument I would not be surprised to see a unanimous decision in favor of Franken in a relatively short time frame (within two weeks -- maybe sooner). I counted at least three of the five Justices who were much more willing to accept Franken's arguments than Coleman's arguments, and who asked Coleman's side much more difficult questions."

Next, today's L.A. Times had an op-ed, written by Richard L. Hasen (a professor specializing in election law at Loyola Law School), titled "How to seat Al Franken". Here are some excerpts:

The only reason for a new federal lawsuit would be to delay the Democrats' ability to obtain a 60th vote [...] Even if Pawlenty chooses not to sign the certificate of election, the Senate, as the constitutionally authorized arbiter of disputed Senate elections, should declare Franken the provisional winner.

A more immediate question if Coleman loses in the Minnesota court is whether the Senate should await the outcome of any direct appeal of the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court before seating Franken.

Coleman ordinarily would have 90 days after the Minnesota judgment to file his petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, and the high court would not be expected to rule on whether or not to hear Coleman's appeal before the beginning of its next term in October, at the earliest. But Coleman can ask to expedite the process. And the Senate should give Coleman only a short window of time to seek an immediate stay of the Minnesota court ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. If Coleman does not quickly seek a stay, or if he files for it and the high court denies the stay, the Senate should provisionally seat Franken.

The U.S. Supreme Court would issue a stay only if it thinks there's a good chance Coleman would win his appeal and that the Senate seating of Franken would irreparably harm Coleman. That's what happened in 2000 when George W. Bush sought a stay to prevent the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recounting of votes in Florida. If the court declines to issue Coleman a stay, it would be time for the Senate to give Franken the seat pending further court developments.

With Coleman facing such long odds at that point, there would be no reason to deny the people of Minnesota half of their Senate representation for another three or more months.

No matter what happens, the Rushpublics will continue to look like the Party of Constipat--er, Blockage. Their negativity and hypocrisy are astounding, and their lack of respect for democracy could be packaged and sold as Raid Voter Repellent.