Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Christopher Dietzen donated twice to the campaign of Norm Coleman, Federal Election Commission records show. Dietzen’s second contribution, for $250 in 2004, went to the very “Coleman for Senator 08″ re-election campaign that has pledged to appeal to the state’s high court, should an imminent election-contest court order favor rival Al Franken as expected.
Two Supreme Court justices who served on the State Canvassing Board will recuse themselves, the Minnesota Independent reported last week, but a court spokesman tells MnIndy this morning that word of any further recusals won’t come until the high court accepts an appeal and lays out ground rules in an initial order.
News of Dietzen’s donations came from the blog Down With Tyranny on Saturday and was picked up Monday morning by the blogger Senate Guru, who last week posted an analysis of the Minnesota Supreme Court justices’ political background.
The two judges who served on the State Canvassing Board during the Franken-Coleman recount in late 2008 and early 2009 are Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and Associate Justice G. Barry Anderson. Because of the roles they played in the recount, neither participated in previous court decisions, and they won’t take part in any future cases related to the recount.
But Dietzen has not recused himself on earlier Coleman-Franken decisions. Court spokesman Kyle Christophersen said that unless individual justices take the unusual step of making their plans for recusal public in advance of deliberations, the world learns about recusals only after the court releases its first order in a case — and even then, it’s ordinarily without explanation.
The three-judge panel that heard Coleman’s contest of Franken’s recount win in the 2008 U.S. Senate race is expected to issue its final order at any time. Coleman has promised to appeal that decision, assuming it leaves Franken’s margin of victory intact, to the state Supreme Court.
A recusal by Dietzen would leave only four of the seven-person high court to decide whether Coleman’s complaints about the election, recount and election contest trial have legal merit.
Dietzen joined the state Court of Appeals in December 2004 — the same year but 11 months after his last political donation to Coleman — and was named to the state’s high court in November 2007. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, whose campaign Dietzen served as a lawyer in 2002, appointed Dietzen to both posts.
Here is the Federal Election Commission’s record of Dietzen’s latest two political contributions, both to Coleman. (For a pdf of the full FEC records showing nearly $4,000 in Dietzen donations between 2001and 2004, click here.)
Leave a comment
Become a fan on Facebook
5 Comments »
Comment posted April 13, 2009 @ 10:53 am
I dunno. This is a pretty close case. Political contributions don’t fall under any of the usual categories requiring recusal. Certainly they may be seen as evidence of bias, but since they are not particularly recent, it might not be seen as standing in the way of impartiality. I believe Dietzen himself is the final arbiter for this decision. The circumstance certainly requires a comment from him – let’s see what he has to say.
Comment posted April 13, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
I believe he can give an independent and impartial judical opinion. I wish I believed that in the US Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision.
Comment posted April 13, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Hey, Ralphie boy – you godda be kiddin’ me.
The most recent donation was to the Coleman for Senate `08 campaign – the same campaign now working it’s way through the challenge process, and the one where Coleman has pretty much vowed to take to the MNSC.
To avoid even the appearance of partiality – the judge should recuse himself from hearing a case in which he’s made a donation to one of the participants.
Since he didn’t donate to the other parties’ campaign, he’s made his partiality clear and plain.
Comment posted April 13, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
I’m going to agree with Ed. I think the situation would be quite different if he had donated to any of Coleman’s earlier campaigns, or to the Republican Party generally, but since these were donations to the campaign involved in this litigation, he should recuse himself.
Of course, that sets the decision up for complaints about its legitimacy coming from such a small panel. Complaints are inevitable, though, so what does it mater?
Comment posted April 13, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
It’s good to know but it may just “normal” contributions given to political candidates. It seemed unusual that there was a contribution at the end of 2001 but not one in 2002 when Coleman would have been looking for every dollar for his contest against Wellstone.
Can anyone provide any documentation of speeches, fundraising involvement or campaign work to support the Coleman candidacy ? If not, then this most likely an “arm twisted” contribution.
That said, I am more concerned about the message that Pawlenty is sending. On his January 2nd radio program, he denounced the MN-Supreme court’s order that either campaign can dismiss an absentee ballot; that was expressed before Coleman had filed his lawsuit. Now, when he is repeating the complaint (as he did last week on MSNBC), the case is in progress. Considering that Pawlenty appoints judges (including some that may hear an appeal to the MN-Supreme Court), this is undue influence. He is question the legal judgement of judges that he appointed and encouraging them to rule as he sees fit. This is a grave concern.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment