Kelliher picked up the endorsements from the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 (yesterday) and the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (last week).

How important are such endorsements?

“[B]ecause of changing demographics, union political endorsements may not move the rank-and-file members, whose interests may not be the same as the union leadership, the way they used to be,” Hamline University professor David Schultz told the St. Paul Legal Ledger.

AFSCME Council 5’s executive director disputed that.

“[O]ur members are incredibly motivated to elect a new governor who will promote public services, rebuild the economy of the state and deal with the budget crisis in a way that asks the wealthiest people in the state to pay their fair share of taxes,” Eliot Seide said.

Photo: Minnesota Independent

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak is running for governor. The development comes as no surprise. Political observers predicted it for months. Rybak hardly hid his interest in seeking the state’s top office. He even garnered a union endorsement for the office that he wasn’t officially seeking. So the announcement Thursday that he had filed papers to form a gubernatorial campaign committee was hardly even newsworthy.

But Rybak’s political gamesmanship — running for re-election as mayor, while coyly hinting at a 2010 bid for the state’s top office — could prove too clever for his own good. Today the state’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board issued a ruling that the Democrat wrongly utilized funds from his mayoral committee to pursue his gubernatorial ambitions.

In particular, the board faulted Rybak’s campaign for a poll commissioned in May that quizzed citizens outside of Minneapolis on questions that clearly seemed designed to test the waters for 2010. The watchdog agency ordered Rybak’s gubernatorial campaign committee to reimburse his mayoral committee $26,500 in order to cover the costs of the poll.

The Republican Party of Minnesota, which initially filed the complaint against Rybak’s campaign with the board, reacted gleefully to the ruling.

“Today’s ruling holding R.T. Rybak accountable for his deliberate attempt to circumvent our state’s campaign finance laws is to be commended,” said state GOP chairman Tony Sutton in a statement. “Rybak campaigned for governor across Minnesota for months without lawfully establishing a campaign committee and recording his expenditures. It appears that the sole purpose of his campaign for mayor was to provide a slush fund for gubernatorial ambitions.”

Rybak’s campaign countered with its own statement taking issue with the board’s findings. “Mayor R.T. Rybak has been honest and forthcoming regarding his consideration of a run for governor, and our campaign has been careful to not raise contributions or make expenditures for the purpose of influencing a campaign for governor until a formal decision was made,” it said. “The Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has found that certain expenses incurred by the mayor’s campaign should be counted as expenses related to a governor’s campaign. Although we disagree with the basis, we will accept the board’s finding and take action to account for these expenses and reimburse the mayor’s campaign for them.”

Rybak’s flirtation with a gubernatorial run failed to have any negative repercussions on Tuesday’s mayoral contest. He romped to a third term with more than 70 percent of the vote. But will the campaign finance board’s ruling have any detrimental impact on his political viability for 2010?

David Schultz, a political science and law professor at Hamline University, doesn’t believe it will prove significant. “Does he have a scarlet A on his forehead? I doubt it,” Schultz says. “Except for some insiders most people aren’t going to care about this issue.”

Indeed, candidates have been rebuked by the campaign finance board in the past for infractions and not suffered electoral consequences. In 2002, for instance, then-state Rep. Tim Pawlenty’s gubernatorial campaign was fined $100,000 for improperly coordinating efforts with the Minnesota GOP. Of course, he’s now serving his second term in the state’s top office and eyeing a national presidential bid.

Schultz does believe, however, that the Rybak snafu highlights the need for changes to the state’s campaign finance laws in order to increase transparency and accountability. In particular, he thinks there should be more frequent disclosure requirements for political contributions and expedited hearings on potential violations of campaign statutes.

“We still have this incredible opaqueness and lack of transparency in terms of our campaigns,” Schultz says. “This is the kind of thing that should have been caught, policed and dealt with months ago.”

He notes that the mayoral contest was already decided by the time the campaign finance board ruling was issued, meaning voters weren’t aware of the violation when they cast their ballots. “Maybe this might have made a difference to some people in the mayor’s race,” Schultz says. “I don’t know if it would have put him under 50 percent, but it might have made a difference.”

Johnson charged her campaign $1,154 for hairdresser appointments and $986 for dry-cleaning during the current four-year election cycle. No other city council candidate used campaign funds for personal grooming, the article notes. Johnson also tapped political donations for cell phone bills and AAA car coverage.

Reporter Erin Carlyle asked Hamline University political science and law professor David Schultz about the legitimacy of such spending. His verdict was not flattering to the city council president.

“Campaign funds are supposed to be spent for things that are campaign-related, not expenses that you would normally incur as being a human,” Schultz said. “I would hope that hygiene is something that you would spend money on as a normal person.”

Choi announced his 2010 bid for the Ramsey County Attorney’s office at a press conference today at the Skyline Towers apartment complex in St. Paul. The location was not arbitrary: it’s where Choi’s family initially settled after emigrating from South Korea when he was three years old.

“I’m running for county attorney because I want to make a difference in the criminal justice system and to ensure the safety of our community,” Choi told the audience. “I have a proven record of leadership and I want to continue to serve this community which has given so much to me and my family.”

The current Ramsey County attorney, Susan Gaertner, is running for governor. There are two other candidates currently vying for the post: Ramsey County prosecutor Dave Pinto and former assistant attorney general David Schultz.

But it’s clear from Wednesday’s event that Choi, long active in DFL politics, will be a formidable opponent. He was introduced by St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and was joined on the stage by state senators Mee Moua and Satveer Chaudhary, Ramsey County commissioners Rafael Ortega and Toni Carter and three members of the St. Paul City Council, among others. He’s also received the backing of numerous labor unions, including the city’s police and fire workers.

“When John came to me and said he was thinking about running for county attorney, I quite frankly suggested he shouldn’t,” Coleman (pictured) told the crowd. “That was just being selfish on my part, because I knew that the work that he did in the city attorney’s office needs to continue.”

A Facebook group was created in April encouraging Choi to seek the upgrade in office. Subsequently a counter group was started on the social networking site lobbying against his candidacy. They cited Choi’s involvement in prosecuting misdemeanor charges stemming from last year’s Republican National Convention as evidence of his lack of fitness for the office.

But at today’s event Choi touted his work combating gang violence, mortgage fraud and domestic violence.

“The people in Ramsey County want a proven leader who will effectively manage a prosecution of 300 employees and a $38 million budget. That is no easy task. They want a leader who will prevent juvenile crime and find innovative ways to prevent criminals from re-offending.”

Former Sen. Norm Coleman (WDCpix)

When Norm Coleman gathered the media at his St. Paul residence last week to announce that he was conceding the U.S. Senate contest after a nearly eight-month post-election battle, he hit all the appropriate notes for appearing gracious in defeat. The Republican repeatedly congratulated his Democratic challenger, praised the integrity of the Minnesota Supreme Court and hailed Minnesotans as the smartest, most decent folks on the planet. It was a relaxed, even folksy display of Coleman’s redoubtable political skills — a tone noticeably missing during the bitter fight with Al Franken.

At the close of the press conference, however, Coleman made perhaps his most illuminating comment. Pressed on his future political plans, he didn’t duck the question as inappropriate for a day on which he was conceding a previous political contest. Rather, the former senator promised prompt news on that front.

“Sometime next week I presume I’ll be talking a little bit about what the future is,” he said.

That teasing answer caught political observers off guard and has fueled speculation that Coleman may turn around and run for governor in 2010.

“I was shocked by it,” says Larry Jacobs, director of the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. “He was using the announcement almost as a boomerang into the next campaign.”

While some political prognosticators are highly skeptical that Coleman will wage a gubernatorial bid in 2010, the specter of another campaign raises an intriguing question: Is Norm Coleman still politically viable?

There’s little doubt that he comes out of the battle with Franken as somewhat damaged goods. As far back as January both candidates registered approval ratings south of 40 percent — and it’s doubtful the intervening six months have done anything to bolster public sentiment. Most Minnesotans would be happy not to see either of their mugs until ice-fishing season.

In addition, Coleman may have run out of chances to prove his political mettle in a statewide campaign. He’s now lost two of three such races, including a 1998 bid for governor. Even Coleman’s 2002 Senate victory carries an asterisk, owing to the death of Paul Wellstone just 11 days before the election.

But few political observers count Coleman out of the contest. He’s an unusually adroit politician who further endeared himself to the GOP base by taking the Senate contest all the way to the state’s top court despite repeated calls for him to concede. In addition, with Tim Pawlenty opting not to seek a third term, the GOP gubernatorial field looks to be a wide-open affair with no obvious favorite. Even so, Coleman can’t be considered a shoo-in for endorsement if he enters the fray.

“I think that he would be among the front-runners,” says Greg Peppin, a GOP political consultant who is advising former House Speaker Steve Sviggum on a potential gubernatorial bid. “I think he would be in the top tier.”

Peppin believes the taint from the ugly Senate fight will fade as the contest recedes from the headlines. “It was kind of a pox on both their houses, but I don’t see that lasting for either of them,” he says.

Coleman would easily have the widest name recognition among the current crop of contenders. He’d also bring a proven track record of raising revenue in what’s likely to be a very expensive race.

“The amount of money this guy raises is just stunning,” says Jacobs. “This is a guy who has been in the big fights and knows how to put together a plan for a campaign and then stick to it.”

Former Republican U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger agrees that the voting public won’t continue to punish Coleman for taking the contest to the state’s top court. But he believes Coleman will be hurt by a hallmark of his six years in Washington: fealty to the Bush administration.

“He will have to answer for appearing to be George Bush’s man from Minnesota,” says Durenberger, who supported Coleman in the 2008 campaign.

Coleman’s plans, however, will likely be driven by more than simple political calculus. The Senate campaign revealed numerous indications that the Republican’s vaunted fundraising ability doesn’t extend to his personal bank account.

In January it was revealed that Coleman had refinanced his St. Paul residence 12 times over the last 14 years, most recently in 2007 for $775,000. In addition, Harper’s Magazine reported that longtime Coleman patron Nasser Kazeminy had purchased suits for the then-senator at the Neiman Marcus store in Minneapolis. Finally a pair of lawsuits filed just days before the election alleged that Kazeminy attempted to funnel $100,000 to Coleman through a Minneapolis insurance firm. The businessman’s purported reason for this political philanthropy: “Senators don’t make shit.”

Eyeing age 60, with two kids currently in college, it seems likely that Coleman might be seeking a post more financially rewarding than the governor’s $180,000 salary.

“I’m not sure he can afford to be governor with his private debt load,” says David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University. “He may actually need at this point to say, ‘Gosh, I can’t run for governor.’ That could very well factor in to what he’s going to do down the line.”

Durenberger expresses similar misgivings about any future campaigns for Coleman. He believes the former senator would be better served by stepping away from public life.

“Does he have legs?” Durenberger asks of Coleman’s political future. “Yes. I’d rather he trotted off into civilian life, but that’s just a personal thing.”

Photo: wdcpix

The announcements by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty came 3,100 miles and 31 days apart. But observers in Alaska and Minnesota see close ties between the two Republican governors’ stated intentions to leave office.

“Palin’s decision, I think, was forced, in part, by Pawlenty’s decision not to run for governor again,” said David Schultz, a professor of law at Hamline University in St. Paul.

Palin set heads spinning and tongues wagging with her surprise announcement on Friday that she not only won’t seek re-election to the Alaska governorship next year but that she’ll step down later this month. In Minnesota, Pawlenty made a smaller splash with his own June 2 announcement that he won’t run for a third term in 2010 — but will complete his current term.

Palin’s announcement came amid ethical complaints and publicity troubles, factors she cited in her remarks. Pawlenty’s came amid tensions over his refusal to enact taxes to balance an ailing state budget, opting instead to unilaterally “unallot” spending programs.

Both moves were widely seen as indications of interest in the 2012 Republication nomination for president. (Pawlenty was first runner-up when U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona picked Palin as running-mate on his 2008 presidential ticket.)

“Touring the country for name recognition and, more importantly, the need to raise a ton of money pushed Pawlenty to make his decision,” Schultz said in an email to the Minnesota Independent on Monday. “Palin, in far-off Alaska, also needs to raise money and tour — and doing that as governor in distant Alaska [is] hard. Both of their decisions are proof that running for president is a full-time, multi-year job.”

In Palin’s view, Schultz reckons, “being governor is no longer good or necessary for her presidential race. She obviously does not believe that experience or any more knowledge about government and politics will help her be a better candidate.”

But putting that calculus into practice comes at a cost, said David Noon, a University of Alaska history professor and Palin critic. “I assume no one is seriously regarding Pawlenty as a quitter, which is, I think, the only appropriate term to describe Palin at this point.”

Pawlenty’s announcement was understated and stately where Palin’s was overwrought and shaky. “Palin bolting in the weird way she did would actually be decent news for Pawlenty’s presidential hopes,” Noon said.

Those hopes could use a boost — and money. Pawlenty’s actual popularity still lags behind a high profile in Republican circles, built on more than a year of keynoting GOP events around the country and having his name bandied about for vice president.

In Noon’s view from Alaska, Pawlenty continues to be about “as uninteresting a candidate as McCain’s people seemed to think he’d be in the VP candidate’s role.”

But if he lacks her luster, he also has avoided the downside of the limelight. In what Noon describes as an Alaskan atmosphere in which “there’s all sorts of nutty rumors circulating,” the official word is that Palin was motivated to quit by the expense of fighting off ethics inquiries — as much as $500,000.

That’s a problem Pawlenty doesn’t have. Indeed, threatened lawsuits over his unallotments appear to have fizzled.

Al Franken Photo: Paul Demko, Minnesota Independent

The end is near in the U.S. Senate contest. That might seem difficult to believe given that the fight has now dragged on for nearly seven months, but the bottom line is that Republican Norm Coleman is running out of legal options.

Election-law experts who have tracked the case closely are unanimous in believing that Coleman’s appeal before the Minnesota Supreme Court will fail — and that it will likely be by a unanimous decision. That will clear the way for Democrat Al Franken to be seated in the U.S. Senate.

Guy-Uriel Charles, a law professor at Duke University, said in an interview that Coleman has a simple problem: He’s asking the justices to ignore state rules pertaining to which absentee ballots are counted. “What he’s asked the Supreme Court to do, as well as what he asked the district court to do, is to ignore Minnesota law as it is written,” Charles said. “There didn’t seem to be a single justice on the court for whom this works.”

Assuming that Charles and other legal observers are correct, the question then becomes whether the state Supreme Court orders Gov. Tim Pawlenty to sign an election certificate, as Franken has requested. If the court fails to do so, Pawlenty would have some wiggle room to resist signing a certificate, thus ingratiating himself to the Republican leadership in Washington, D.C., that would rather see Franken out on the street.

“As soon as he signs it voluntarily, he’s dead meat with Republicans nationwide,” said David Schultz, a professor of law and political science at Hamline University. “They’re never going to remember eight years of no new taxes. They’re going to remember you voluntarily put Al Franken in the Senate.”

But Franken’s legal team would undoubtedly return to the courts immediately seeking such an order. “I can imagine a two-stage dance as opposed to a one-step process,” said Edward Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University who has closely tracked the Minnesota recount saga. “It might require some additional legal skirmishing.”

If Pawlenty is eventually ordered by the court to issue a certificate, as seems likely, he would have little choice but to comply. While many political pundits have observed that the Republican governor’s decision not to seek a third term liberates him to resist calls to sign off on the election, defying the state’s top court would be an extraordinary act.

“I just don’t think the governor is going to have a showdown with the courts on the election certificate,” Charles said. “I just can’t imagine that.”

If Pawlenty were to take such an audacious step, he’d face the prospect of being found in contempt of court. The consequences would likely be a fine or even a stint in jail.

Even if the governor does refuse to sign an election certificate, that doesn’t mean Franken won’t be seated. Although the U.S. Senate has so far agreed to hold off while the election contest is sorted out in the courts, it’s likely that the Democratic-controlled body would lose patience at that point.

“They have insisted on the certificate up until now,” Foley noted. “But it is possible that if the governor refused to issue the certificate in defiance of the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Senate could say it’s now time to seat him.”

Coleman has been adamant that he will pursue every possible legal avenue in the contest. But his supporters in Washington, who have continued to raise money to cover his legal bills, may lose enthusiasm if Franken is seated. With Senate Democrats holding a filibuster-proof majority, and the likelihood of Coleman prevailing diminishing with every new legal ruling, the impetus to fight on may dissipate.

But if Coleman presses on into the federal courts he would have two options. He could file a new lawsuit in U.S. District Court. The difficulty there is that the former senator’s federal claims have already been addressed by the state courts. In non-legal terms, he’s not entitled to two bites of the apple. Unless a federal judge determines that those claims have not been adequately dealt with in the state courts, he’s likely to dismiss the case. Given that the three-judge panel that heard Coleman’s initial contest weighed testimony from 142 witnesses and nearly 20,000 pages of legal documents, such a determination seems unlikely.

“It’s possible that Coleman could find a friendly federal judge,” Foley said. “I think the odds are way against it, but it could happen.”

Coleman’s other option is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Most legal observers agree that the court is highly unlikely to wade into the electoral morass. Foley notes, however, that back in 2000 most such experts strongly believed that the Supreme Court wouldn’t intervene in Bush v. Gore.

“A lot of people had egg on their faces,” he said. “Until they say no it’s at least a theoretical possibility that they could say yes.”

So when might Franken be seated? Schultz believes that the Minnesota Supreme Court will rule by the July 4 holiday and that Franken will make his way to Washington shortly thereafter. “I would see Franken seated sometime no later than the third week of July,” he said.

Edward Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University who has been closely tracking the case, provides a lengthy analysis of Monday’s arguments. He criticizes Coleman’s legal team for its handling of the case, as well as the arguments made by Joe Friedberg, the Republican’s lead attorney.

“If the Minnesota Supreme Court rules for Franken, it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that the court inevitably must be biased against Coleman,” Foley concludes. “On the contrary, the trial court unanimously ruled against Coleman and displayed no bias or unfairness. In the end, impartial jurists reasonably might conclude that Franken has the better case on the merits. Or, alternatively, the conclusion might be that Coleman’s attorneys failed to put before the court a winning case that perhaps, with a different strategy, they could have made.”

Hamline University political science and law professor David Schultz, who was in the courtroom for Monday’s arguments, reaches a similar conclusion.  He notes that the justices were particularly vigorous in questioning Friedberg’s framing of the case and that they seemed to find the evidence assembled by Coleman’s legal team lacking. “Prediction: 5-0 for Franken with a decision by the July 4 holiday,” Schultz concludes.

Rick Hasen, a law professor at Loyola Law School, is almost as dismissive of Coleman’s prospects. “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),” he writes. “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.”

Finally Guy Uriel-Charles, a Duke University law professor, also predicts a unanimous victory for Franken. “What’s remarkable about the whole oral argument is that there were very few questions, if any, asked on what to do next — what is the standard that you want us to apply,” Charles told the Star Tribune.

Two justices have already said they’ll recuse themselves from deliberating on Coleman’s appeal. Three more made past donations to political campaigns that have some (mostly distant) connections to the Franken-Coleman contest and could conceivably recuse themselves on those grounds.

With as many as five empty seats on the seven-justice court for the high-profile case, Gardebring Ogren says Associate Justice Alan Page could put in place the “occasional practice” of  finding qualified temps to replace the absent justices.

Page himself is already acting as chief justice on Franken-Coleman related matters. Chief Justice Eric Magnuson has recused himself due to his service on the State Canvassing Board that oversaw the statewide hand recount.

Gardebring Ogren held a series of top state jobs, including associate justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court from 1991 to 1998. She left the bench for a post at the University of Minnesota and is now a vice president at California Polytechnic State University. Her comments today came during an appearance on Minnesota Public Radio’s “Midday” program.

Also on “Midday” was Hamline University law professor David Schultz, who predicted that oral arguments could come in mid-May, with a ruling in early June.

Writing a carefully written high-court decision might require two or three weeks of work, he said.

A separate appeal to the federal courts is likely, according to Schultz, but he called it unlikely that the federal courts will take the case.

Seating of Minnesota’s second senator will take place “July-ish,” Schultz said.

As to the question of whether Supreme Court justices are swayed by political leanings, Gardebring Ogren said her experience on the court would “point the other way.”

Schultz said most such biases wouldn’t have a chance to impact a court decision on Coleman’s expected appeal of the election contest court’s ruling that Franken won by 312 votes. But he allowed there still “might be some room to have your own ideology factor in.”

Coleman’s attorneys immediately announced, however, that he would be appealing the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The former senator then jetted off to Washington to reassure supporters that he wasn’t giving up the fight.

But by continuing to drag out the election contest — therefore ensuring that Minnesota is represented by just one senator — Coleman might hurt his own future political prospects if he presses the case much farther.

Former Senator Dave Durenberger, a Republican and Coleman supporter, believes that the most serious damage to Coleman’s political future occurred during the nasty, extraordinarily expensive campaign, rather than the aftermath.

“The reason I think that people are patient is that a lot of people got to the point where they don’t give a damn,” he notes. “It was such a horrible campaign. That’s the challenge that Norm faces. It makes it difficult to get back to remembering how good Norm was at a lot of things, as a mayor and as a senator.”

John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has suggested that the senate contest could take “years,” a prospect that the Republican leadership seems perfectly happy to live with considering that it keeps the Democrats stalled at 58 seats. But Durenberger doesn’t think the Republican leadership has Coleman’s best interests in mind.

“They could care less about Norm Coleman,” he says. “They’ll talk about Norm: ‘We loved him. He was such a terrific blah blah blah.’ But — and it’s hard to says this — this is not the same Republican caucus that was there when I served. If Norm had to finance this recount on his own, he never could have gone through it. Norm couldn’t afford to put a nickel into this thing, but John Cornyn could.”

Dean Barkley, who attracted 15 percent of the vote as the Independence Party candidate in the U.S. Senate race, figures the public is willing to give Coleman the benefit of the doubt — for now.

“It’s his right to pursue this,” says Barkley. “I think if he pushes it beyond the state Supreme Court he might start getting some pretty serious damage.”

Hamline University political science professor David Schultz agrees that Coleman’s currently at a tipping point with the general public. “I get the sense in the last two to three weeks that the support has dramatically eroded,” he says.

Schultz believes Coleman would best preserve his own future political prospects by conceding defeat if the three-judge panel rules in Franken’s favor.

“I think at that point the public’s like, ‘Okay, you had your one shot at the court,’” he says. “As soon as he files the appeal, whatever remaining support I think he has is completely eroded.”

But Schultz argues that at this point Coleman is too beholden to the Republican leadership to act in his own best political interests.

“For the Republicans a vacant seat is just as good at this point as having Coleman in office,” he says. “The longer they can keep this seat vacant, the longer they can keep the Democrats from getting to number 59. I’m not even sure if Coleman is in complete control of his destiny at this point. I think they’re pretty much dictating the terms of the legal strategy at this point.”

Of course, given Coleman’s well-publicized financial troubles, the goal may no longer be political victory, but rather (as suggested by this story at Huffington Post) a plush job on K Street. If that’s indeed the case, then Coleman most certainly will explore every legal avenue imaginable.