Is this soap opera EVER going to end???

amen, brother. any additional comments would only mirror the sentiments re: pelosi / truth commission.

the blame does not go to the individuals whom avail themselves of the opportunity to contest results. The blame goes to the system that allows for such a drawn out process that deprives the citizens of their representation, and to the people who created that system.

Thats not what was being said in 2000.

Dragging it out was stupid then and its stupid now.
And both times it seems the loser is dragging it out.

I believe that one argument that the Supremes gave for getting involved and deciding WAS that the process could not be allowed to drag out. The question is where is the Minn Supreme Court? Why do they allow this nonsense to continue at the detriment to the entire state?

Read what the Minneapolis Star Tribune says about the Supreme Court
**************************************************************
In a response to arguments filed by Norm Coleman, Franken tells high court all is fair, square.

By PAT DOYLE

Last update: May 12, 2009 - 12:10 PM
Al Franken on Monday defended his victory in the U.S. Senate election trial, telling the Minnesota Supreme Court there is no evidence that problems with absentee voting affected the outcome of the race.

Responding to Republican Norm Coleman's appeal to the high court, Franken denied that variations in the way counties handled absentee ballots deprived some voters of their constitutional right of equal protection. Franken said the variations were "reasonable" and "minor" and not unconstitutional.

"The different procedures were consistent with the different resources, personnel and technology available to each county and city," Franken's camp said.

Franken also said Coleman's lawyers never adequately raised a constitutional due process argument in seven weeks of testimony during the trial.

Coleman claimed a due process violation during closing arguments, saying the three-judge panel that heard the trial imposed different standards for counting ballots than were used during the election and recount.

Franken said Coleman should have raised the issue in a more serious manner earlier in the trial if he wanted it to be considered.

Coleman spokesman Tom Erickson did not have an immediate reaction to the Franken argument, contained in a document filed Monday with the state Supreme Court. Coleman is expected to file a rebuttal this week. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 1.

The three-judge panel ruled unanimously on April 13 in favor of Franken and said he was entitled to an election certificate to be seated in the Senate.

In the document filed Monday, Franken's lawyers asked the justices to uphold the panel's ruling and order Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to issue an election certificate promptly.

The high court earlier ruled that an election certificate could not be issued until after the state court case. But Pawlenty has left open the possibility that he might not issue a certificate if a federal appeal is ongoing.

An elections law expert who has followed the case said it's possible the Minnesota Supreme Court will take a middle road.

"It could well be that if the state Supreme Court sides with Franken, it will order the issuance of a certificate after a short time, enough time for Coleman to seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court," wrote Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, in his Election Law blog.

Over the weekend, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, said Coleman would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if he loses at the state level. "This does not end until there's a final ruling that speaks to whether or not those votes that have not been counted should be counted," Steele told the National Journal. "And Norm Coleman will not, will not jump out of this race before that."

For his part, Coleman hasn't said whether he would pursue his effort into the federal courts. He also hasn't ruled out such a move.

Focus on absentee ballots

At the state level, Coleman is appealing a series of orders by the trial panel that ultimately gave Franken a 312-vote lead. Franken had led by 225 votes after the recount.

Coleman's appeal focuses mostly on absentee ballots, arguing that at least 4,900 that were excluded by the panel during the trial should be counted. Those ballots, he said, are similar to flawed ballots counted by local officials on Election Day.

But Franken countered that Coleman failed to prove that most of those ballots were cast by registered voters and said the panel wasn't authorized to open and count absentee ballots that don't comply with Minnesota law.

Franken defended the panel's decision requiring absentee voters to comply strictly with the requirements of Minnesota election law, saying absentee voting is a privilege and not a right like voting in person.

While Coleman said some counties allowed the kinds of ballots that others rejected -- sometimes in error -- Franken said the variations were well within the range accepted by courts. "If ... minor variations in election procedures or minor errors ... were held to be a Constitutional wrong, it would be virtually impossible for a state to conduct an election administered at the precinct and county level," the Franken document said.

He cited court decisions that said an election law infraction "is not fatal" in the absence of proof that it affected the outcome or was intentionally discriminatory or the result of "fraud or bad faith."

He noted that the panel found Coleman "failed to prove that any alleged irregularity actually affected the election's outcome."

Hasen said in an interview that the argument could be crucial to the Supreme Court. He said it could conclude that Coleman "hasn't demonstrated that there were problems of such magnitude ... that would require sending it back to the lower court for additional counting or for ordering a new election."

Other arguments

While absentee ballots are at the center of the dispute, Franken also rebutted a Coleman claim that the DFLer benefited when 132 ballots disappeared from a Minneapolis precinct and officials relied on Election Day machine totals for the recount.

The document disputes Coleman's claim that problems with the Senate election were comparable to those in the 2000 presidential election, in which the U.S. Supreme Court intervened on grounds of equal protection.

"The cases remain factually distinct on numerous, significant grounds," the document said.

Election and constitutional law experts Fred Morrison of the University of Minnesota, Guy-Uriel Charles of Duke University Law School and Hasen said Monday that it's unlikely Coleman will prevail before the state Supreme Court because he hasn't proven violation of constitutional rights or state elections law.

"I thought Coleman had an uphill battle, and it's only reinforced by my reading of the Franken brief," Hasen said.

and in 2000, the supremes ( stop! in the name of love..), pulled the plug at +/- 6 weeks, not 6 months.

i'd wager that norman has done to his political career what swearingen did to trixie on deadwood last night.

The MN supreme court? They are obeying the bidding of their Republican masters, for sure, by delaying this as far as possible...

Cycloptichorn

with the republican governor playing along.

0 Reply report Mon 18 May, 2009 12:47 am Read what the Minneapolis Star Tribune says about the Supreme Court
**************************************************************
In a response to arguments filed by Norm Coleman, Franken tells high court all is fair, square.

By PAT DOYLE

Last update: May 12, 2009 - 12:10 PM
Al Franken on Monday defended his victory in the U.S. Senate election trial, telling the Minnesota Supreme Court there is no evidence that problems with absentee voting affected the outcome of the race.

Responding to Republican Norm Coleman's appeal to the high court, Franken denied that variations in the way counties handled absentee ballots deprived some voters of their constitutional right of equal protection. Franken said the variations were "reasonable" and "minor" and not unconstitutional.

"The different procedures were consistent with the different resources, personnel and technology available to each county and city," Franken's camp said.

Franken also said Coleman's lawyers never adequately raised a constitutional due process argument in seven weeks of testimony during the trial.

Coleman claimed a due process violation during closing arguments, saying the three-judge panel that heard the trial imposed different standards for counting ballots than were used during the election and recount.

Franken said Coleman should have raised the issue in a more serious manner earlier in the trial if he wanted it to be considered.

Coleman spokesman Tom Erickson did not have an immediate reaction to the Franken argument, contained in a document filed Monday with the state Supreme Court. Coleman is expected to file a rebuttal this week. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 1.

The three-judge panel ruled unanimously on April 13 in favor of Franken and said he was entitled to an election certificate to be seated in the Senate.

In the document filed Monday, Franken's lawyers asked the justices to uphold the panel's ruling and order Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to issue an election certificate promptly.

The high court earlier ruled that an election certificate could not be issued until after the state court case. But Pawlenty has left open the possibility that he might not issue a certificate if a federal appeal is ongoing.

An elections law expert who has followed the case said it's possible the Minnesota Supreme Court will take a middle road.

"It could well be that if the state Supreme Court sides with Franken, it will order the issuance of a certificate after a short time, enough time for Coleman to seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court," wrote Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, in his Election Law blog.

Over the weekend, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, said Coleman would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if he loses at the state level. "This does not end until there's a final ruling that speaks to whether or not those votes that have not been counted should be counted," Steele told the National Journal. "And Norm Coleman will not, will not jump out of this race before that."

For his part, Coleman hasn't said whether he would pursue his effort into the federal courts. He also hasn't ruled out such a move.

Focus on absentee ballots

At the state level, Coleman is appealing a series of orders by the trial panel that ultimately gave Franken a 312-vote lead. Franken had led by 225 votes after the recount.

Coleman's appeal focuses mostly on absentee ballots, arguing that at least 4,900 that were excluded by the panel during the trial should be counted. Those ballots, he said, are similar to flawed ballots counted by local officials on Election Day.

But Franken countered that Coleman failed to prove that most of those ballots were cast by registered voters and said the panel wasn't authorized to open and count absentee ballots that don't comply with Minnesota law.

Franken defended the panel's decision requiring absentee voters to comply strictly with the requirements of Minnesota election law, saying absentee voting is a privilege and not a right like voting in person.

While Coleman said some counties allowed the kinds of ballots that others rejected -- sometimes in error -- Franken said the variations were well within the range accepted by courts. "If ... minor variations in election procedures or minor errors ... were held to be a Constitutional wrong, it would be virtually impossible for a state to conduct an election administered at the precinct and county level," the Franken document said.

He cited court decisions that said an election law infraction "is not fatal" in the absence of proof that it affected the outcome or was intentionally discriminatory or the result of "fraud or bad faith."

He noted that the panel found Coleman "failed to prove that any alleged irregularity actually affected the election's outcome."

Hasen said in an interview that the argument could be crucial to the Supreme Court. He said it could conclude that Coleman "hasn't demonstrated that there were problems of such magnitude ... that would require sending it back to the lower court for additional counting or for ordering a new election."

Other arguments

While absentee ballots are at the center of the dispute, Franken also rebutted a Coleman claim that the DFLer benefited when 132 ballots disappeared from a Minneapolis precinct and officials relied on Election Day machine totals for the recount.

The document disputes Coleman's claim that problems with the Senate election were comparable to those in the 2000 presidential election, in which the U.S. Supreme Court intervened on grounds of equal protection.

"The cases remain factually distinct on numerous, significant grounds," the document said.

Election and constitutional law experts Fred Morrison of the University of Minnesota, Guy-Uriel Charles of Duke University Law School and Hasen said Monday that it's unlikely Coleman will prevail before the state Supreme Court because he hasn't proven violation of constitutional rights or state elections law.

"I thought Coleman had an uphill battle, and it's only reinforced by my reading of the Franken brief," Hasen said.

Cyclpos doesn't know a thing about the Minneapolis Supreme Court. The locals in Minnesota. Here is what they say:
Recount's next stop: Minnesota Supreme Court
By Kevin Duchschere, Minneapolis Star Tribune

April 15, 2009

The steaming dispute over Minnesota's U.S. Senate race is about to be passed to the state Supreme Court, a dignified and usually low-profile tribunal that will soon become the focus of a national political brawl.

The court has already played key roles in the Senate recount drama, issuing several critical rulings. Now, with Republican Norm Coleman about to appeal a lower court ruling in favor of DFLer Al Franken, the justices must resolve the sweeping question of whether Minnesota's election process has denied voters' rights.

But first they'll have to decide who will hear the case.

Two members -- Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and Justice G. Barry Anderson -- served on the Canvassing Board that oversaw the recount, and both have declined to participate in recount-related rulings since. Magnuson even had Alan Page, the court's senior justice, appoint the three-judge panel that ruled in Franken's favor Monday.

Three other justices either backed or opposed Coleman candidacies with contributions before they became judges, and some observers have mused about whether they should stand aside.

If there are holes on the court, there is precedent for bringing in retired or former judges to fill in, said Hamline University Prof. David Schultz.

Already, the justices are being studied for evidence of political leanings that might give hints on how they may decide. But few, if any, clues can be gleaned from looking at who appointed them or candidates they have backed, said Peter Knapp, a William Mitchell College of Law professor who annually reviews the high court's decisions for the Minnesota judiciary.

The court isn't ideological, Knapp said.

"On the whole, it's a court that has paid very close attention to the language of the statutes and has not been at all an activist court," he said. "They're not writing the law, they're interpreting what the Legislature said the law is."

Appeal and justices

Coleman legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg said Tuesday that Coleman will, indeed, appeal Monday's election decision to the state Supreme Court, probably sometime next week.

If Magnuson and G. Barry Anderson recuse themselves, the appeal likely will be heard by the other five justices, whom most Minnesotans probably wouldn't recognize if they ran across them. Except maybe for the man with the bow tie who has a bust in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

That would be Page, the only one of the justices who got to the court initially (in 1992) through election rather than appointment. A full-time law student while he was still crushing quarterbacks for the Minnesota Vikings, Page worked eight years under DFL Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III before joining the court.

Paul Anderson was chief judge of the state Court of Appeals when Republican Gov. Arne Carlson named him to the high court in 1994. Anderson practiced law for 18 years with former GOP Gov. Harold LeVander in South St. Paul. He headed Carlson's campaign committee and his judicial selection commission.

Helen Meyer worked 20 years as a civil trial lawyer and mediator, and founded her own firm, before Independence Party Gov. Jesse Ventura appointed her in 2002. Meyer contributed $1,000 in 2001 to Sen. Paul Wellstone for his reelection bid against Coleman and had given hundreds of dollars to other DFL candidates and groups.

Lorie Gildea, appointed in 2006 by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, is a former prosecutor and University of Minnesota counsel. She gave money to Coleman's gubernatorial campaign in 1998. Her husband, Andy, works for the House GOP caucus.

Christopher Dietzen, a Pawlenty appointee, has been a justice for a year. A former litigator and appellate judge, he was Pawlenty's campaign lawyer in 2002. Dietzen gave $250 to Coleman's Senate campaigns in 2001 and 2004 and gave thousands of dollars to other Republicans and a conservative PAC.

Some pundits are asking whether Dietzen, Gildea or Meyer should recuse themselves because of their contributions. Knapp, for one, thinks their political activity before they took the bench has little to do with what they're thinking now.

Big election ruling

The five justices already have figured in one of the bigger issues of the recount. In December, the court ruled 3-2 that rejected absentee ballots approved by local officials and both campaigns could be added to the recount. Meyer, Gildea and Dietzen sided against Page and Paul Anderson, both of whom objected to letting the campaigns have a role in which ballots could be included or excluded.

The decision led to the counting of 933 once-rejected absentee ballots, which extended Franken's 49-vote lead to 225.

Only about 15 to 20 percent of last year's opinions contained dissents, Knapp said, and the court puts a premium on harmony. But that decision is a good example of the shifting coalitions that he said often characterizes their decision-making. "There's a fair amount of disagreement, and who's voting with who changes depending on the kind of case," he said. "We've seen good evidence this year that the Supreme Court justices think of themselves as judges first, and their loyalties are to the court and to the law."

If Cyclops, with his one good eye, was able to read the link, he might have noted the following:
Recount's next stop: Minnesota Supreme Court
By Kevin Duchschere, Minneapolis Star Tribune

April 15, 2009

The steaming dispute over Minnesota's U.S. Senate race is about to be passed to the state Supreme Court, a dignified and usually low-profile tribunal that will soon become the focus of a national political brawl.

The court has already played key roles in the Senate recount drama, issuing several critical rulings. Now, with Republican Norm Coleman about to appeal a lower court ruling in favor of DFLer Al Franken, the justices must resolve the sweeping question of whether Minnesota's election process has denied voters' rights.

But first they'll have to decide who will hear the case.

Two members -- Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and Justice G. Barry Anderson -- served on the Canvassing Board that oversaw the recount, and both have declined to participate in recount-related rulings since. Magnuson even had Alan Page, the court's senior justice, appoint the three-judge panel that ruled in Franken's favor Monday.

Three other justices either backed or opposed Coleman candidacies with contributions before they became judges, and some observers have mused about whether they should stand aside.

If there are holes on the court, there is precedent for bringing in retired or former judges to fill in, said Hamline University Prof. David Schultz.

Already, the justices are being studied for evidence of political leanings that might give hints on how they may decide. But few, if any, clues can be gleaned from looking at who appointed them or candidates they have backed, said Peter Knapp, a William Mitchell College of Law professor who annually reviews the high court's decisions for the Minnesota judiciary.

The court isn't ideological, Knapp said.

"On the whole, it's a court that has paid very close attention to the language of the statutes and has not been at all an activist court,"

Only about 15 to 20 percent of last year's opinions contained dissents, Knapp said, and the court puts a premium on harmony. But that decision is a good example of the shifting coalitions that he said often characterizes their decision-making. "There's a fair amount of disagreement, and who's voting with who changes depending on the kind of case," he said. "We've seen good evidence this year that the Supreme Court justices think of themselves as judges first, and their loyalties are to the court and to the law."