“[T]oday, in 2009, in our country, it’s still perfectly legal to fire someone because they’re gay,” Franken told the committee. “You can be a hard worker, show up on time, and get exemplary performance reviews, but if your boss discovers that you’re gay or transgender, they can fire you, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Franken noted that Minnesota was the first state in the nation to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and the sky hasn’t fallen here.

Now, most Minnesotans attend religious services every week. Minnesota is home to 19 Fortune 500 companies. Minnesotans enjoy a very high standard of living. So it might surprise some of you that the Minnesota Human Rights Act was passed in 1993. This law protects workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This law has been protecting workers from discrimination for fifteen years, and Minnesota’s sky has not fallen. Minnesota is basically the same as it was before this law was passed with only one small exception—about 20 or so people per year exercise their rights under this law after they are discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Only one person spoke against the bill. Craig Parshall, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters Association, said ENDA would “impose a substantial, unconstitutional burden on religious organizations.”

Despite those concerns, the bill does state that it “shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution or institution of learning, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Here’s video of Franken’s remarks:

The bill passed the U.S. House two weeks ago. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken were among the 68 Senators voting for the bill on Thursday. Twenty-nine Senators voted against the bill.

If Obama signs the bill, it will mark the end of 10 years of pressure from LGBT and human rights groups to pass the legislation.

Immediately following passage, LGBT groups hailed the vote.

Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director, Family Equality Council:

“Safety at home, at work, and in our communities is a cornerstone of happy, healthy families. LGBT families live in 99% of counties nationwide. We are neighbors, friends, loved ones, family members, workers and community members. Many of us are also parents who want more than anything to keep our children safe and to raise them in a world that finds strength in difference and celebrates diversity. Bias-motivated violence against any individual hurts our entire community. The protections and resources moved forward by Congress will ensure greater safety not just for LGBT people as individuals, but as parents and caregivers.”

Rea Carey, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

“Today’s vote marks a milestone for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. The hate crimes bill now shifts to the president. With his signature, President Obama will usher in a new era — one in which hate-motivated violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people will no longer be tolerated. Our country will finally take an unequivocal stand against the bigotry that too often leads to violence against LGBT people, simply for being who they are.”

Joe Solmonese, Executive Director, Human Rights Campaign:

“We applaud the leadership of our Senate allies, particularly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, and Susan Collins for ensuring that the hate crimes provision remained part of this authorization bill. We also recognize the tireless efforts of Senator Ted Kennedy on this issue; a hero for our entire community.”

His confirmation caused little debate, except among anti-abortion activists who decried Diaz’s support for Obama last fall. Diaz said he is “pro-life” and supports finding a common ground on the issue of abortion.

“I am very grateful to the Senate for this confirmation and to President Obama for the confidence he has invested in me,” he said in the statement Tuesday. “I am honored to be given the responsibility of representing the people of the United States to the Holy See.”

Fellow Minnesotan Sam Kaplan was also confirmed by the Senate on Tuesday for ambassador to Morocco.

Photo: Andy Birkey/MnIndy

Sen. Al Franken says his first bill in the Senate will be one to provide service dogs to veterans. A longtime USO entertainer for troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, Franken said training service dogs to work with physically and emotionally wounded veterans is a cost-saving measure.

“Frankly, I believe it is enough simply to improve the lives of those of whom we asked so much,” he wrote in an op-ed in the Star Tribune on Saturday. “But this program isn’t just the right thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do. This is win, win, win, win.”

He continued, “Service dogs raise their masters’ sense of well-being. There is evidence to suggest that increasing their numbers would reduce the alarming suicide rate among veterans, decrease the number of hospitalizations, and lower the cost of medications and human care.”

Elmer L. Andersen (ca. 1965), by Edward Vincent Brewer. MHS

Gov. Elmer L. Andersen’s full statement of Saturday, March 23, 1963, as printed in the Minneapolis Tribune the following day:

After the most careful consideration I have decided not to appeal the ruling of the district judge panel. There is no justification for appeal simply because the Supreme Court has already made its position clear on certain categories of irregular ballots and there is no way to judge the remainder so as to reverse the result of the lower court. 

This is the  anlysis of my counsel, Messers. Kyle and Morton, and Recount Director Tom Swain, all of whom have done a perfectly magnificent job in my behalf. 

To the very many people who have urged me in the most strenuous terms to appeal to the Supreme Court, I may say with equal emphasis, that were there the slightest basis for expecting a reveral of judgment, I most certainly [would] appeal. 

On the other hand, when a competent and fair tribunal, which the district judge panel most certainly has been, renders a judgment that skilled representatives of mine feel cannot be successfully challenged in a higher court, then no one could expect me to appeal in order to gain time or keep possession of this office until the last possible moment. 

When the canvassing board declared me the winner and the contest started, my supervisors and I were confident the final result would be victory for me by an increased margin. 

I decided to carry on all the duties and responsibilities of governor as best I could, under the circumstances, and this I have done. 

As a result, legislative and administrative programs have moved ahead in a positive way. 

To those who wonder why the recount changed the original result, I would point out that there is about the same percentage of irregular ballots among Republican voters as DFL. I had 15,000 more paper ballot votes than my opponent, thus the opposition had 15,000 more chances to find irregular ballots than our people did. I am confident my recounters found every vote there was to be found. 

Actually no one can know for sure who had the most voters’ support last Nov. 6th as more tha 1,300 ballots were thrown out, and the established margin of victory is only 91. 

To those who suggest that this then could only be resolved by a run-off election, the answer is that there is no provision in our constitution or statutory law for such a solution. This is a matter for legislative consideration to apply to future elections. 

To those who wonder why it has taken so long to decide this election, may I say it is only because it is so close. Out of this experience every citizen can gain a heightened appreciation of each vote and awareness for the need of casting it properly, and suggestions for improving election lawss and procedures. 

I will not attempt at this time to reveiw and assess all the accomplishements of my administration, but I know there has been solid achievement in the fields of human rights, goverment services, jobs and economic growth (particularly for northeastern Minnesota), traffic safety, improvement in the state’s finances, natural resource development and future planning. 

It is particularly gratifying to have won for the people a right to vote on a taconite amendment for which I fought so long, and at times, almost alone. 

To me it has been a fruitful and rewarding two and one quarter years. I am thankful to state employees, department heads, legislators, study group members and all others who have contributed time, thought and energy to provide such substantial gain in so many areas, in so short a time. 

May I say a special word of thanks to all members of the news media, with whom I have always enjoyed working, for their diligence in presenting news of Minnesota state government. 

Monday I will file a waiver of waiting period with the Ramsey County District Court which will permit a certificate of election to be issued to Mr. Rolvaag. 

My staff will be here Monday morning until Mr. Rolvaag has qualified and his people arrive. I have written Mr. Rolvaag my beset wishes and placed my executive secretary, Mr. Milton Knoll, in communication with Mr. William Shovell, so there can be an orderly transition. 

As to my own future plans, I will be consulting with my loyal and devoted staff on their relocation. It will not be my plan to return to the active management of H.B. Fuller Co., although I will return to my office there and assume a position to be determined. My main activity will continue to be in the field of community and public  service as it has been for some years. 

I would particularly like to puruse the long-range New Dimension Natural Resource program which we have launched. 

Today ends one chapter, admittedly a shorter chapter than I had intended, but there are more to be written. I am disappointed but not the least discouraged: I am defeated but not the least disheartened. I am deeply grateful to the people of Minnesota for the privilege that has been mine to serve as governor of this great state which means so much to me, and to the thousands of unselfish workers for better government who have given me their support. 

Our son, Tony, and his wife, Alice, are home from New York for this weekend, as is my college son, Julian. With Emily and my wife, Eleanor, who has given so much to me, our family is united. 

Our love has deepened and broadened through this experience. We are thankful we have retained good health, and we continue to be humbly grateful for the rich blessings of God that we have so abundantly received.

Two leading players in the new-media stunt known as the ”Twitter War“ compared themselves to Minnesota’s Senate rivals. Kutcher tweeted “now I know how Al Franken must have felt” when the race looked tight on Thursday. After the actor bested the network today, CNN host Larry King said, “I’m not a sore loser. I’m not gonna pull a Norm Coleman and take this to the courts.” (h/t noahkunin)

King’s offhand sobriquet for the former Minnesota Senator comes only two-and-a-half weeks since a Media Matters critic took the nation’s press and commentariat to task for failing to call Coleman a “sore loser.” In the interim, however, a Minnesota court has ruled that Franken won by 312 votes, and Coleman vowed to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court and perhaps the federal courts as well. 

Here’s a video clip of Kutcher on “Larry King Live” tonight (King’s “Norm Coleman” comment comes at the 5:00 mark):

KING: I’m not a sore loser. 

KUTCHER: No, you’re not. 

KING: I’m not gonna pull a Norm Coleman and take this to the courts. 

KUTCHER: You have been gracious, very gracious. 

And here’s the “Al Franken” Twitter message that Kutcher sent Thursday. 

As of the time of this post late Friday, Kutcher had 1,118,658 followers on Twitter while CNN still lagged with 1,046,927 — for a combined total of more than 2.1 million — still about 800,000 shy of the 2.9 million votes cast (and then recounted by hand)  in Minnesota’s 2008 U.S. Senate election.

“We will never know who won,” Norm Coleman said Wednesday. That’s after seven Minnesota judges — three on Monday and four in January — concluded that Al Franken won Minnesota’s 2008 election for U.S. Senate. His was a “close victory,” the Democrat conceded on Monday. But Coleman — now down by 312 votes — isn’t buying it. “Our system isn’t geared for this kind of closeness.”

Still, some precision is possible in politics, as Gawker.com suggested Wednesday with its two-word description of Gov. Tim Pawlenty: “Amiable prick.”

The first word describes Pawlenty’s friendly demeanor — as displayed, for example, during his appearances on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” where he unveiled his controversial intention to mull over a future state Supreme Court ruling on Coleman’s lawsuit before he signs an election certificate.  

The second captures the other side of T-Paw’s essence, on exhibit most recently during his appearance Monday on Minnesota Public Radio’s “Midday” program. He fairly spit out the word “welfare” before offering this grousing aside: ”By the way, Minnesota’s in danger, I believe, of becoming one big social service agency.”

More imminent is the danger that Minnesota will become one big election-contest courtroom, as Coleman takes his complaints about the election to the state’s high court.

Coleman made his “we will never know” statement to the St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial board, writes reporter Rachel Stassen-Berger (in an article that runs separately from the newspaper’s editorial, which also appears this morning).  

Coleman also told the PiPress board that the question for his legal team is not whether to file a petition for an appeal to the state Supreme Court. Rather, he said, it’s “the scope of the appeal. Do we file on every point or do we appeal on some points?”

On that point Coleman will almost certainly get sage advice from lawyer Ben Ginsberg (a veteran of the 2000 Bush v. Gore case), who asserts that a winner is impossible to determine unless the state accedes to Coleman’s Constitutional argument that its election system failed to treat voters in different counties equally.

“You cannot know who won this election without coming to grips with the equal protection issue,” Ginsberg warned.

RELATED:
Coleman: Media ‘could have waited’ until after Nov. 4 to ask about money-funneling
Times to Coleman: Drop Dead
Klobuchar was off by all of 42 minutes in forecasting a new Minnesota Senator
Dissing ‘judicial fast food,’ Coleman slights the hand that feeds him
Poll: 63 percent of Minnesota voters want Coleman to concede
Coleman recount committee took in nearly $1 million in first quarter of 2009
Coleman legal bills pile up
Recusals in Coleman case could whittle state high court below quorum
The morning after: Coleman’s legal prospects look grim
Franken: ‘I will be certified’
Coleman: ‘I’m a winner’

Fast forward to this week. On Monday, April 13, at exactly 6 p.m., the three-judge panel in the Norm Coleman-Al Franken election-contest trial released its decision that Franken had indeed won election to the U.S. Senate.

Now the spooky part: Precisely 42 minutes after the judges made their decision public, came the official declaration of ice-out on Lake Minnetonka.

Here’s what Klobuchar said two months ago:

My prediction, Rachel, is that we will have a new senator by the time the ice melts on Lake Minnetonka, which that is predicted to be April 11.

She was wrong about April 11 — or rather, whoever’s prediction she cited was wrong. But ice-out day on Lake Minnetonka is hard to predict. Records show it has come as early as March 11 (in 1878) and as late as May 8 (1856).

Now Klobuchar has taken some heat for some unforeseen consequences of a law she authored banning lead in toys. But allowing for a broad interpretation of the phrase “have a new senator,” Klobuchar proved herself spectacularly accurate – off by less than an hour – about the timing of what history likely will show was the moment when Minnesota knew who its next Senator would be.

Much more accurate anyway than any of the predictions by the person in perhpas the best position to make something happen: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose latest failed prognostication about filling Minnesota’s seat passed without incident on April Fool’s Day.

Here’s the video clip from Maddow’s Feb. 16 program. Klobuchar’s prediction comes at the 3:45 mark.

 And here’s Maddow again on April 17, with a segment based on this post (starts at about the 3:00 mark):

And here’s a video clip of Klobuchar on CNN’s “State of the Union with John King” on April 19, (prediction talk starts at the 12:00 mark, transcript excerpt below):

KING: So, Senator Klobuchar, when will this be over? And I assume you’ve told Al Franken that even if he wins in the end, you will still be Minnesota’s funniest senator?

(LAUGHTER)

KLOBUCHAR: Well, all right, first of all, I would say this, and that is that Norm Coleman has a right to pursue his appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. But Minnesota also has a right to two senators. This has been going on for months now. Since December, our staff, I’m so proud of them, they’ve had double the case work. Everything from veterans benefits cases to people who have lost their Social Security checks to people who are trying to adopt babies in Guatemala that are stalled out.

Minnesota has that right to two senators. I’m hopeful the Minnesota Supreme Court is going to move very quickly on this. The law actually says in Minnesota that they have to set aside their other work.

Now, I had predicted this would be resolved when the ice melted on Lake Minnetonka, John. And the three-judge ruling came out, 42 minutes, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources declared the ice had melted.

Now I predict this will be done when Minnesotans are allowed to swim in our lakes, which is Memorial weekend.

KING: I will have you back in five or six weeks, Memorial Day weekend. I think my math is about right on that. It might be a little more. Amy Klobuchar, John Ensign, senators both, thank you very much for being here today.

(hat tip: MPR’s Polinaut)

Ned Foley, Guy Charles, Rich Hasen

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.”

“I also would want to look at what the courts did with the case in terms of leaving issues for potential appeal, the strength of those issues, how directly and effectively they addressed them,” Pawlenty told a Minnesota Public Radio call-in audience today “I’m not saying that I’m going to, or not going to, issue the certificate at that point. I just want to make sure I have all the facts in front of me before I made a decision like that.”

It’s the second time in a week that Pawlenty, a Republican and a trained attorney, said he plans to cast himself in the role of judicial critic once the courts issue final rulings on Coleman’s legal challenge to Franken’s recount win.

On April 8, Pawlenty told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that before he signed an election certificate, he would want to “see what the case would look like at that point, in terms of how harshly or strongly the issues have been decided or dealt with by the Minnesota Supreme Court.”

When Maddow asked whether he’d sign the certificate — which the state Supreme Court has said is his duty once the state courts are through with the case — Pawlenty replied: “It’s premature to say that, based on a number of factors. … We just need more information as to evaluating this case.”

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has promised to provide the second required signature on an election certificate after the state Supreme Court takes action on an expected appeal from the election-contest court. “I assume we are both going to follow the order of the Minnesota Supreme Court” that a certificate should be issued “at the end of the state court process,” Ritchie said.

A decision is expected at any time from the three judges who presided over a seven-week trial of Coleman’s challenge to Franken 225-vote recount win. Last week, Franken’s margin increased to 312 after the judges allowed 351 previously uncounted absentee ballots. An appeal must be filed within 10 days of the election-contest court’s order.

Pawlenty said it could be “June or later” before the state courts complete the Coleman-Franken case.

Pawlenty, who reportedly ran a close second to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for Sen. John McCain’s vice-presidential pick last year, also replied to a question from MPR “Midday” host Gary Eichten today about whether he wants to be president. Pawlenty claimed not to have given it “any serious thought” and also wouldn’t say if he’ll run for a third term in 2010.