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.”

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.

The vandal or vandals spray-painted a swath of messages on several buildings, on sidewalks and even trees and bushes. The messages included derogatory comments about gays and lesbians.

Hamline students said the incident was dealt with swiftly by campus authorities — so swiftly, in fact, most students never saw the graffiti.

“These are acts of vandalism, intended to be hurtful and to undermine our values as an inclusive and honorable community,” said school president Linda Hanson in an e-mail to students and faculty.

“Such acts will not be tolerated at Hamline, and we will pursue every avenue to discover the perpetrators of this vandalism. As a community, we embrace multiculturalism and aspire to be exemplary as an inclusive learning community, free of all forms of harassment, hostility and violence.”

A.J. Grieve, a member Spectrum, the student group hosting Rainbow Week, said it seemed that the graffiti was not directly targeting their events.

“The incident did not seem like it was trying to target the queer students as much as it was using questioning someone’s sexuality as an insult. It really just show just how ignorant some people still are,” she said. “Fortunately the school did do a very good job for the most part.”

She added, “I think we are all still hoping that it was done by someone outside of the Hamline community.”

Alex Suskovic, administrative chair for Spectrum, said campus administrators visited his group to talk about the incident but were brief on details.

“They were extremely prompt about fixing the graffiti. I wouldn’t have even known about it unless they had sent an email out,” he said.

“My only gripe — and this always seems to be the case — [is] they won’t give specifics on what actually happened. They are more interested in the aftermath, how people are feeling or how to address the issue.”

He added that the Hamline administration, and campus in general, has been a very supportive environment for LGBT students.

“I have never felt threatened or harassed here and I also know that if I did feel that way the administration would take it very seriously.”

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.

Al Franken (Photo: Aaron Landry) and Norm Coleman (Photo: WDCpix.com)

As the U.S. Senate contest lurches forward, with nearly 80 percent of the ballots recounted and Norm Coleman clinging to a roughly 200-vote lead over Al Franken, a resolution finally looks to be on the horizon. But as events have repeatedly proven over the last three weeks, nothing is as simple as it seems when a Senate seat that potentially could give Democrats a fillibuster-proof 60-seat majority is on the line.

All eyes will now turn to the five-member statewide canvassing board as it meets Wednesday morning to deal with the thorny question of whether to consider absentee ballots that were rejected by local election officials. The Franken campaign believes that the panel must do so in order to compile a complete and credible vote tally; the Coleman campaign argues such rejected ballots are outside the body’s jurisdiction.

But no matter the canvassing board’s decision, the issue is likely to ultimately end up in court. “I’m expecting somebody to be filing a motion in court by the end of day tomorrow,” says David Schultz, a political science and law professor at Hamline University. Schultz figures the losing side, whether the Democrats or Republicans, will immediately seek a temporary restraining order or injunction barring the decision from being implemented.

The only real question, he believes, is whether the jilted campaign will turn to federal or state courts for relief. The Franken campaign already has a case pending in Ramsey County District Court related to the rejected absentee ballots, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only possible venue for litigation. “Clearly the Franken campaign has done a really good job raising both federal and state claims, giving it options to go to either or both of the court systems at the same time,” Schultz says.

The rejected absentee ballots are not the only issue that seems ripe for litigation. The challenged ballots, which now number more than 3,000, could also prove irresistible to the teams of attorneys assembled by both sides. Schultz says that the key for whichever campaign looks likely to end up on the short end of the tally will be to keep the canvassing board from certifying the results. Until that happens a winner can’t be sworn in to office come January. “Whoever’s behind has every motivation, once it looks like it’s clear that they may loose this one, to prevent the canvassing board from acting,” he notes.

Perhaps the most intriguing wrinkle to consider when looking at possible litigation is the makeup of the canvassing board. Minnesota Supreme Court justices Eric Magnuson and G. Barry Anderson are both serving on the panel. This means that they would need to recuse themselves from any litigation related to the senate recount that comes before the state’s top court. Given that both were GOP appointees, this would seem to be an unwelcome development for the Coleman campaign. “It gets two potentially partisan Republicans off, although I don’t think they’re that partisan myself,” Schultz says.

If the contest drags on into January with no resolution, the opportunity to fill the seat would likely fall to Gov. Tim Pawlenty. That undoubtedly would result in Coleman being re-appointed to his post. But it would only be, at best, a temporary solution. If there’s no resolution, a new election would need to be held next November to determine who would fill the final five years of the term. “We’d have to run through the whole damn thing all over again,” says Schultz.

That’s a prospect that should be terrifying to Minnesotans of all political stripes.