U.S. Rep. John Kline wants the Minnesota Supreme Control to declare “no winner” in the election contest that shows Al Franken beat Norm Coleman by 312 votes. And he says he has encouraged Coleman to carry on his court fight.
Kline’s public comments on the Minnesota U.S. Senate race have been rare. But it turns out he has a lot to say:
I have thought it’s important that we know what the legitimate results of the election are. I encouraged [Norm Coleman] to carry this through the courts until we can get as much confidence here in Minnesota and in the nation that the results are accurate.
And frankly, the court’s going to do what the court’s going to do. Supreme courts have a lot of power; they can kind of do what they want to do.
But it seems to me we have 2.9 million votes cast and right now you’re looking at a difference of 300 and small change, there’s not going to be any confidence that we really have a result here.
Especially when there are thousands of disputed ballots, the absentee ballots. I think Norm’s assertion that the absentee ballots were allowed different standards in different counties is absolutely correct. And as long as that sits out there, there’s going to be a great deal of uncertainty about the actual results of the election.
So in a perfect world I guess, I would like to see the Minnesota Supreme Court say there isn’t a winner here. There is not a winner. We cannot declare a winner.
And then I suppose the law would require Gov. Pawlenty to name somebody, to have an election again in 2010.
But this is truly unique. I don’t know that anybody knows of anything like this anywhere in the country, ever, where you had a race this close and no reasonable way to resolve it.
You may recall in Georgia, they had their senate race, Saxby Chambliss had the plurality, a clear plurality, but he didn’t have over 50 percent. And their law requires a runoff, and there we’re done. Had the runoff, results are done, certified, a senator’s seated and they’re off and running.
And we’re still caught here. So I hope that we’ll change our election laws here in Minnesota.
Via Minnesota Public Radio’s Polinaut blog.













20 Comments »
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Me wonders of Kline would be saying the same thing if Coleman was up by 312 . . . nah, I don’t wonder, he would be talking about how decisive and significant the lead was and that it is foolish the result was challenged to begin with.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Why does John Kline reject democracy?
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Silly old man Kline. They should have given him fortified cereal when he was growing up. He seems to be losing it. Cancel an election because it was close. Typical utterance from a member of the “Party of Stupid”.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
I thought Republican didn’t like judicial activism. But now it seems that Kline wants the Supreme Court to legislate all new election laws from the bench.
But it is just like Republicans to try to suddenly change the rules in the middle of a game they are losing.
Five year-olds have more class than Republicans when it comes to being good sports.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Spoken like a true Party of No Republican.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
this is the same John Kline who lied about Canadians crossing the border and lining up for health care in Minnesota.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
I join many posters here in their sentiments.
Apparently – in spite of the non-partisan and fully transparent election process we use in Minnesota – Mr Kline only trusts results that favor his party, his candidate. If not, then rules need bending or changing, judges need reshape rather than interpret existing law …. something ANYTHING is needed, so that Republicans prevail.
Frankly it is disturbing that Republicans have so little faith in elections. Bodes poorly should they ever win a governing majority again.
Some day he’ll have to eat his words on this, as a Republican he likes wins by close or disputed margin, or he’ll be exposed as a partisan hack and hypocrite. Wonder which is more likely?
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
These idiots have been telling me for 40 years that my vote counts, someone could be elected after winning by one vote. So, by this logic, Franken won by 312%. There is no such thing as “Too close of a contest”.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Why do Minnesotans keep sending that Texan clown to represent them in Washington? The only difference between Kline and Michelle Bachmann is that Kline is the greater do nothing for his district. The guy seldom even gives a speech let alone makes sense. A total zero Republican hack.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Has the Supreme Control taken that device that makes your head explode if you go beyond the perimeter off of Rutger Hauer’s neck yet?
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
Perhaps Joe should relocated to China or Iran. Clearly he has lost the idea of our form of government.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
I know the Minnesotan’s have elected Rep. Kline as a lawmaker, but do they really support him making up laws as he goes along on his own. I think Rep. Kline would be better suited as a dictator where he could make laws he wants whenever the situation arises.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
Here’s a solution that should satify Rep. Kline’s deeply held polital beliefs of judicial strict constructionism and trust in the constitution:
1. The Minnesota Supreme court rules that the laws of Minnesota re the election and recount process have been followed (none of this judicial activism and meddling into issues of US constitutional law such as the equal treatment clause -the proper forum for that, after all, is in the Federal courts).
2. The court further rules that under Minnesota law, that the govenor’s duty is to issue an election certificate for the recount winner
3. The Senate, under it’s constitutional powers to determine the qualifications of its members, duly deliberates and determines the person to be seated as the second Senator from Minnesota (based on tradition and perhaps even taking into account the various twists and turns of the Minnesota election process).
4. Minnesota gets its second Senator!
This scenario is all above board and in strict adherance to Minnesota law and the constitution (as to opposed “making law” and having the Governor appoint the Senator). The other issues such as uncertainty in the minds of the people as to “who really won” are a bit of a stretch. The electoral college, not the popular vote count, determines the President. Has there really been a question in the minds of most Americans about the legitmacy of our recent minority popular vote (less than 50% of total votes cast)presidents (Trumen, Kennedy, Nixon, 1st term Bush) who were elected by a majority of the electoral college.
vote?
I think not.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
I know!!
Political
Legitimacy
Truman
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Maybe what Minnesota needs is an Iranian decider for quick election results.
Comment posted June 29, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Wow! Michelle Bachmann must have the day off. Lucky she has backup in the stupid department.
Comment posted June 30, 2009 @ 8:07 am
Kline wants to change the law so that a winner in an election can be declared only if the winning margin is greater than or equal to x votes. But he has not told us what x is (other than that he wants x > 315). Please be more specific Mr. Kline. The bigger you take x to be, the more disputed elections you will have. Logic?
Comment posted June 30, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Read his comments carefully … Kline is encouraging Coleman to continue his appeal, yet his suggested solution is a new election.
Is Kline proposing a 2010 Senate in which he would be the Republican nominee ?
Look at the numbers, Coleman did not lose by 312 votes … he lost by 63,209 .. as that many McCain voters decided that Coleman did not represent their views.
Compare Kline and Coleman. Coleman was Minnesota’s leading user of earmarks; something that Kline wants ended. Coleman supported SCHIP while Kline opposed it. Coleman opposed drilling in ANWR which Kline supported. There are others (climate change, fuel efficiency, immigration), but remember the last critical vote before the election was TARP (or the bank bailout) – Coleman voted for it; Kline opposed it. Too many people have forgotten why Coleman lost.
The GOP is happy that Minnesota does not have a second Senator … a RINO that might break along the lines of Snowe, Collins, etc is not what they want … but John Kline is the loyal soldier that they would welcome with open arms.
Comment posted June 30, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Just reading all these comments, I can see how these people are so tolerant of others. I would like to know why the MN supreme court would make a ruling knowing there were more votes cast in this election than eligable voters.
Comment posted June 30, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Statement: “I would like to know why the MN supreme court would make a ruling knowing there were more votes cast in this election than eligable voters.”
Where did you get this? Even Colemans’s sharp legal team never made this claim (read their briefs). Coleman received 1,212,206 votes, Franken received 1,212,431 votes (after the recount)plus minor candidate votes of 437404 for Barkley, 13916 for Aldrich, 8905 for Neimackl, and 2340 write-in vote for a total of 2,887,202 votes cast (source for minor candidates -the Minnesota state canvassing board). Total registered Minnesota voters as of 10/27/08? 3,199,134. (source, Minnesota secretary of state). Those numbers indicate that there were 311,932 MORE eligible voters than votes cast.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment