Norm Coleman filed his appeal of the U.S. Senate election contest with the Minnesota Supreme Court today, arguing that “widespread disparities” in which absentee ballots were accepted distorted the final vote tally.
“The deliberate and disparate treatment of large numbers of similarly situated voters — who had their votes counted only if they lived in certain jurisdictions — is unacceptable in any election,” the brief notes. “It is especially so in one so close.”
Earlier this month, following a seven-week trial, a three-judge panel determined that Al Franken won the election by 312 votes. Coleman immediately announced that he would appeal the ruling.
The crux of Coleman’s case is whether different standards were applied across the state in deciding which absentee ballots were counted in violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
“Some counties, for example, assiduously researched whether a voter or his witness was registered; others never inquired,” the 62-page brief notes. “Some officials accepted ballots when they could not locate an application; others refused to do so. The result is that whether an absentee ballot was accepted depended on where the voter lived.”
While many legal observers praised the ruling of the three-judge panel that heard the election contest as thorough and well reasoned, Coleman argues that the trio erred in failing to consider evidence of disparate treatment of ballots.
“Had the court not excluded such evidence Coleman would have proven the disparities changed the outcome of the election,” the brief reads.
Coleman contends other errors were made by the panel as well. The appeal argues that the judges failed to order precinct inspections to determine if double-counting of ballots occurred and wrongly included 132 ballots from a Minneapolis precinct that were lost.
The brief, signed by attorney James Langdon, concludes that the case should be remanded back to the trial court to remedy these errors. Specifically, Coleman wants at least 1,359 absentee ballots added to the final tally.
Franken’s reply brief is due May 11, and oral arguments are slated for June 1 before the five justices. Two of the Supreme Court’s justices — Eric Magnuson and G. Barry Anderson — have recused themselves from the current case because they served on the State Canvassing Board that oversaw the recount.














11 Comments »
Comment posted April 30, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Coleman, are you kidding?
Enough already..put the jokemaker in and lets shake hands….
Comment posted April 30, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Deliberate and disparate?
The Coleman camp is arguing that there was a conspiracy between counties to deliberately apply different standards? Good luck proving that one.
The burden of proof is, as always, upon the plaintiff. So far, Coleman hasn’t proved anything to the satisfaction of the Court.
Comment posted April 30, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Hey Norm. While you are at it, I was not thrilled with the won loss record of the Twins last season. You know a switch of 2 games would have made a huge difference. You think you could get the court to change that outcome?
Comment posted April 30, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
It’s just milking the slow judicial system as far as it will go. Stretching the 10 day appeal period…and so on. The state supreme court will uphold the judges decision, at that point all Minnesota state options will be exhausted, and according to the law, Franken should be certified and seated.
The last slowdown glitch could be the Rep. Governor, who simply has to put his signature on the final certification. He has no basis not to, since there is no other recourse to take the case further in the state, but….yep, purest partisan politics.
I do not think the US court has the gall to intervene in a state matter…but then again, in 2000, they threw out over 100,000,000 votes and counted only 9 votes.
Comment posted May 1, 2009 @ 1:15 am
Coleman knows he can’t win.
All this is at this point is a plan being funded by nationwide GOP parties to keep Minnesota disenfranchised as long as possible, keeping us from proper representation.
Taking out of state money to keep this charade running should be illegal, it’s certainly unethical.
And I just love how ineffectual Pawlenty is. He doesn’t want to seat Franken, so instead, he’s doing absolutely nothing.
Vote Pawlenty out next! His nearly billion dollar ball park could have gone to other, better expenditures. This public support of private playpens for millionaires is disgusting.
Comment posted May 1, 2009 @ 3:28 am
Coleman talks like he knows what’s on the ballots not included. Is there reason for him to think that they would change the outcome or is he capable fooling himself, or of trying to fool everybody else? I hope he wins so we can find out if he is being a fool or not.
Comment posted May 1, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Norm Coleman should take the honorable action and congratulate Senator elect Al Franken and offer support so that Minnesotan and the nation can move forward addressing the grave issues facing our state and the country. On the other hand, if I were Norm I’m not sure I would willingly return to the dark side of Bush/Cheney supporters and tell them “Look fellas we had a good run, but
misplaced our integrity and honorable action”. For some reason those folks don’t strike me as being from Lake Wobegon.
Comment posted May 1, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
It’s quite odd that Norm finds the MN electoral system “unacceptable in any election”, when he seemed satisfied with that system giving him a previous victory. Is Coleman acknowledging that his 2002 plurality win was not legitimate?
The bottom line is that these “disparate standards” are LEGAL under MN State law. These disparate standards do not inherently disadvantage any Party, either.
Coleman’s mantra of “count every vote” is a dismal lie, considering he does not want every vote counted – only the disputed ballots of his supporters.
If one were to put any State’s election system under a microscope, certainly some kind of ugliness could be found. Was Coleman not aware of how Minnesota’s election system worked prior to the election? Or did he merely presume that these “disparate standards” would work in his favour and thus be “okay”?
Why has Pawlenty avoided making a public statement that he will abide by the MNSC’s decision? That simple act would reveal an end to this charade. Instead, Pawlenty is leaving the door open for years of federal suits by Coleman.
I guess that we can put Coleman’s Nov. 5 statements that he has “complete confidence” in Minnesota’s election system as one of those things he didn’t mean because was tired.
Comment posted May 1, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
@Bob Sixta
Norm would have to be honorable to do that.
Comment posted May 13, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
My last comments disappeared.
Why does MInnesota allow people to register to vote, and vote on the same day–people can drive all over the state and vote many times. One doesn’t need to ba a rocket scientist to see the opportunity for fraud.Even California closes the registration period 2 weeks before the vote.
How many times did the votes have to be recounted before Franken came out ahead?
How many precincts turned in more votes than there were registered voters?
How many precinct workers produced ballots after the election, that had been forgotten in the trunk of a car for over 24 hours?
How embarassing that my former State can not acknowledge voter fraud and call another election–it would be less expensive than all the recounts and legal procedures.
It is sad that people are so willing to twist the law, lie and cheat to accomplish their goal of gaining complete control of every citizen’s life.
Comment posted May 16, 2009 @ 8:31 am
To: K.J. Boyer…
Careful, you risk confusing some in here with the facts about how those votes were or were not counted. Most obviously prefer their sound-bites & headlines.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment