tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/norm-coleman-maybe-we-need-a-do-over-election.php?ref=fp1
The talk from the Coleman campaign about how the Minnesota election results are unreliable, and that a do-over election could be an option, has now gone beyond just Norm Coleman's lawyers -- it's now coming from the mouth of Norm himself.
discussed the campaign's argument that the court's current strict standards for allowing in previously-rejected ballots must by extension render illegal a whole lot of ballots accepted and counted on Election Night, when local election officials used lax standards: "What does the court do?" "Yeah, you know some folks are now talking about simply saying run it again, just run it again."
said we're never going to figure this out, just run it again. Ultimately the court has to make a determination, can they confirm, can they certify who got the most legally cast votes?" Coleman also said that he truly believes that he is the one who got the most legally cast votes, but on the other hand, this whole situation shows serious concerns about the process. "I got to believe next time this happens folks are going to say ... if you have something within a couple of say percentage - this is by the way was thousandths of a percent - but if you have something within a couple of hundred votes out of three million cast, probably the best thing to do next time is run it again in three weeks and put all this other stuff aside." However, his own legal team has demonstrated during this trial that leniency occurred in deep-red counties, too.
user-pic It's happened before (New Hampshire Senate race 1974). I'm not convinced they can pull it off, but it's certainly a possibility you can't dismiss so easily.
I'm wondering about that (but too lazy and don't have time right now to look it up): Does there actually have to be an affirmative vote deciding to seat each newly elected Senator? Or is it assumed that a Senator with state credentials will be seated -- the default, as it were -- and a challenge is required to prevent him/her from being seated? If the former, then I can see how they could filibuster, but if the latter, the shoe is on the other foot and the Democrats could prevent the challenge from being heard, ie, filibuster it, unless the GOP got 19 Democrats to go along.
user-pic mans_best_friend just cited the Durkin-Wyman case. In that case, the Senate itself passed the buck back to the state. And milquetoast Harry Reid won't even make the Thugs filibuster; he'll just capitulate at the mere threat of a filibuster. As is finally being pointed out by others here, it IS UP TO THE SENATE to judge elections and returns of its members. My own biases give me a hunch--admittedly no evidence for it other than my unreliable political antennae--that plenty of the Senate Dems don't want Mr Franken in their midst. Although Al is ready to play by their rules, the other members of the club don't trust him to refrain from speaking the plain truth too often for their comfort. At this point, Norm could petition the Senate to dispose of this by ordering a new election. Actually the Senate can only declare the old election null. Pawlenty could then re-appoint Norm or another Thug of his choice, and the legislature would have to decide if a special election would be restricted to the last two top finishers or open to all. In which case either Barkley or Ventura could also run again, and maybe win.
user-pic As I read Senate Rule II, if the Republicans want to filibuster Al Franken's seating then they will have to hold an actual filibuster and all work in the Senate will grind to a complete halt while they do it. Senate Rule II expressly states that the presentation of credentials "shall always be in order" and that "all questions and motions arising or made upon the presentation of such credentials shall be proceeded with until disposed of." Doesn't that mean that Al Franken's presentation of credentials automatically goes on the schedule of Senate business and that the Senate cannot table the question. They have to consider it and proceed on it until resolved. I don't think Harry Reid has the option of allowing the Republicans their weaksauce non-filibuster filibuster if Al Franken chooses to present his credentials.
user-pic I don't see how that link has anything to do with this point. All that link says is that Senators aren't actually required to talk while filibustering. By the way, while reading more about the Durkin-Wyman contest, I noticed that the Senate referred that matter to the Senate Rules committee. That indicates that I am wrong that all Senate business would grind to a halt. I'm curious, however, how the Senate reconciled that practice with the language of Rule II.
I interpreted your "actual filibuster" comment to mean that they had to stand and talk and read from the phone book or something. His hands were tied before because he had a non-majority majority. He did the best that he could and he did a pretty good job with the hand that he was dealt.
user-pic You should read the article about filibuster on Huffington Post. The consensus of experts on Senate procedures is that all that is required is for all Republican senators except one to leave the chamber. Every time the motion is made for a vote, the single senator rises from his desk and requests a quorum count. This is how the last actual filibuster was implemented, in 1988. An attempt by the Majority Leader to forcibly obtain a quorum failed.
user-pic as I noted in a reply to Michael A--that Huff Post article has a comment from a reader who quotes directly from Senate rules about quorum calls, and the commenter makes a case to the effect that the quorum call device CANNOT be used ad infinitum---there is a distant but definite limit to its employment. Rules can often be interpreted to get what one needs done.
user-pic I appreciate the reference to the HuffingtonPost article, which I did read. I don't see how that changes the effect of the "shall always be in order" and "shall be proceeded with until disposed of" in Senate Rule II though.
user-pic With all due respect, I don't think your political antennae is functioning. The Democrats would prefer a whole new election over seating Franken because he's too independent? This has been Coleman's plan all along -- to re-do the election. He was never going to win this case -- he just wanted to delegitimate the results of the election. I'm so glad the Repubs are fine with cutting umemployment benefits but have no problem paying for new elections.
There's nothing in Minnesota Election Law that allows for a run-off election. Once Norm's run out the clock on his court case he can appeal it to the MNSC, that's it.
Of course it isn't his money paying for the court challenge or for a new election. Not only for the Republican Senators, depriving Minnesotans of two Senators, but imagine the billing hours!
user-pic When the initial count was close and state law mandated a recount, Coleman was urging Franken to decline the recount and he cited his "concerns" over the cost of a recount. Now he wants another statewide election and suddenly he's not so fiscally responsible. Here's my theory: I would bet that Coleman wants exactly as many recounts and new elections as it takes for him to "win" and, coinicdentally I'm sure - that number will turn out to be EXACTLY the right number of attempts that it takes to make the election "fair".
user-pic And it is this hypocrisy that Franken should be running to the media with every chance he gets. A recount would be run by the same officials who ran this one, under the same rules. Or does Coleman think the re-vote should wait until new election rules are written up and passed? And there would be a whole host of legal challenges and litigation if there is another re-vote. Coleman knows this, and knows it can't happen, but he just wants to make Franken's win seem weak and illegitimate in the eyes of the voters. The funniest damn thing would be if the courts ruled in favor of Coleman to give him a slight lead - how fast would his tune change, before of course ruling on some of Franken's questioned ballots that would give Al the lead back.
user-pic how fast would his tune change, before of course rulin...
|
http://csua.com/feed/