Three election-law experts who have been closely tracking the Norm Coleman-Al Franken contest for U.S. Senate weigh in today with written reactions to the final order (pdf) from the three-judge panel that heard Coleman’s complaint. All admired the order for its unanimity and deft handling of Coleman’s equal-protection claims.
The ruling meets two standards that Ohio State University professor Edward Foley had set for the panel: unanimity and a willingness to grapple with whether local variations in applying state election processes violated Minnesotans’ constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Foley stresses the impartiality of the ruling — as compared to, say, Bush v. Gore in 2000, on which Coleman’s claim of equal-protection violations relied:
There is no doubt … that this three-judge court would have rejected the same Equal Protection claim if raised by Franken rather than Coleman.
Loyola Law School professor Rich Hasen doesn’t use the word “impartial” but he does call the ruling “careful, unanimous,” “reasonable and conservative,” and ”detailed and measured.”
On equal protection, Hasen writes that the three-judge panel “has it both ways” — calling the issue outside the court’s scope but also rejecting it with “impressive and sensitive handling”:
As I predicted, they rejected a reading of the case that would require the counting of further illegal votes to deal with any illegal votes that had already been cast, and they rejected an argument that any lack of perfection in the casting and counting of votes constitutes a violation of equal protection.
Coleman’s equal protection argument is “not trivial,” writes Guy Charles, a University of Minnesota law professor temporarily teaching at Duke University:
But as judges and legal academics like to say, that argument proves too much … Unfortunately for Coleman, his prospects always depended upon a miracle. He wanted before and wants now more ballots to be counted. But the more ballots that are counted — by election officials, the Canvassing Board and the trial court — the better Al Franken does.
“It’s over,” Charles advises Coleman on his post-election legal battle. “It’s Kumbayah time.”














2 Comments »
Comment posted April 14, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Regarding the decision itself, overall it was proper but I was disappointed in their failure to address a number of things.
#1. They sidestepped the “missing” ballot question. The judges declared the 132 ballots “were cast and properly counted on Election Day.” True, but since they were lost, we do not know if they were accurately counted. Considering the Kentucky case in which a Judge and election workers are accused of altering ballots after being submitted by the voter, the concern is that evidence could be destroyed and the results accepted. What if the “missing” ballot group was from Carver County which gave Coleman’s his largest margin, would Franken supporters look at this issue differently. Fortunately, the outcome would not have changed because of the number of votes involved, however I would like to have seen some instruction from the Court that these situations have to be investigated and resolution determined on a case-by-case basis (absent a change in election laws.)
#2. What about voter fraud prosecution? During the trial, Coleman witnesses admitted that they did not sign the forms … shouldn’t the Court have instructed the AG to investigate ?
#3. What about voter suppression ? Did some counties go beyond the norm to disallow voter’s ballots ? For example, in Carver County, again, it provide Coleman with his largest margin, evaluated the witness’ status on State’s Voter database … this is not a requirement … but by doing so, they rejected potential voters. {Now, we don’t know how many may have gotten the problem corrected.} Considering that the highest number of rejected ballots were from Benton, Crow Wing, and Itasca counties … and all were easily won by Coleman, there is a concern for voter suppression.
Pingback posted April 14, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
[...] by Phoenix Woman on April 14, 2009 From the Minnesota Independent: Coleman’s equal protection argument is “not trivial,” writes Guy Charles, a University of [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment