Norm Coleman makes final argument to Minnesota Supreme Court

Minnesota may have a uniform election law and election officials may have uniform training, but the outcome was far from uniform in the 2008 U.S. Senate race, Republican Norm Coleman told the state Supreme Court on Friday.

[mike v]

jezz normy give it up would ya !!!!! not only are you looking petty your screwing the state and the country up by dragging this out,,just man up and run again the next time

[jim]

Keep fighting Norm, spend all your money,have Gov.Tim P. help you out.And dont let the door hit both of you on your way out !!! Go away!

[Buttomfly]

Why is he fighting so hard? Will the investigation done by the FBI dig deeper and hit harder without the immunity of his U.S. Senate seat? I think he is running the race of his life and it will be the final one.

[Lawrence]

I can understand the argument based on "substantial compliance" when evaluating fresh, new ballots. It is essentially a "presumption of innocence" philosophy - and has a practical value if there is a scarcity of resources available on Election Day.

It's a case of what you don't know may or may not hurt you.

But what you know to be factual cannot be dismissed so lightly. For example, how can it be ignored that ballots have been rejected for being non-compliant?

If a ballot were known conclusively to be non-compliant with Minnesota statutory requirements, it would seem to me that to allow the ballot to be counted would be an overt act that willfully violates the law.

I believe the remedy that is sought could result in violation of the separation of powers. If the remedy were enacted, the Minnesota Supreme Court would be disregarding the laws established by the legislature - and would instead be using laws of its own devising.

Because the only available source of ballots to count are those proven to be non-compliant with Minnesota statutory requirements. And election officials and the ECC have established this proof after meticulous review.

The MnSC cannot simply wipe all collective memory banks clear of this knowledge.

[THE Radest Rethuglican]

MINNESOTA FIRST, NORM!

It's only a matter of days before your doomed effort to thwart the will of the people will be transformed into abject failure.

The people of Minnesota will long remember your hapless waste of our time and selfish act of denying Minnesota of its elected representative in the Senate. You're finished! Forever! How sweet it is!.

[Lawrence]

Per my prior post #4, even if the Court rules that an equal rights violation has occurred, I do not believe a remedy requiring more votes to be counted will be selected.

The only reasonable alternative would be to declare the election invalid, thus necessitating the legislative branch to require a new election to be held.

I am personally insufficiently knowledgeable of law or case history to venture a legal opinion of the likelihood of the MnSC ruling that an equal rights violation has occurred.

But I can offer a common sense opinion.

It would seem to me that it is unknown whether the variance in treatment of absentee ballots by the different voting centers resulted in a meaningful quantity of absentee ballots accepted that should not have been counted.

From a common sense perspective, I would think that without this knowledge it would be difficult to ascertain that any group of voters has been treated unequally.

There is a method that can be used to determine if that is the case. But I would think the MnSC would probably place the burden of proof on the plaintiff to present such evidence. To my knowledge, the Coleman team has to-date not developed this evidence.

[Flatblade]

All recount, contest and election fans should read the stuff that Eric Black writes in minnpost. Here is his analysis of Coleman's final brief: http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2009/05/15/...

It is very significant that there may not be enough rejected absentee ballots that were proven by Coleman to be legitimately cast to turn the election, so even if the court has some sympathy for Coleman's "similarly situated" case, it may not matter.

On a related matter, doesn't it make sense that the ECC (a court of law) should demand proof that the ballots submitted for cosideration are legitimate? The ballots in question were rejected at least twice each. The Coleman-Franken case is adversarial, if Coleman could get an advantage, that is what his lawyers are supposed to do. Coleman's team had a chance to examine all the ballots, and contact most of the possible voters (to determine who they might have voted for)--the situation doesn't mirror either the original vote count or the recount.

[Klarley Balters]

Give up Norm! Your career in Politics is OVER!

[Julie]

Please, when you go to bed tonight, pray for Norm Coleman. We need this good man at least for another 6, 12, 18, 24 years or longer in the Senate. There isn't another humanoid in this galaxy that could replace him. Norm is simply irreplaceable. He is a unique and wonderful creature. If you can, please send any money that you can spare to Norm Coleman. In this way, we can be assured of a long protracted legal battle with litigation and endless motions. With your help, we will achieve victory. Thank you very much. Amen.

[Not Final Arguments]

Norm Coleman's final arguments will be at his eventual criminal corruption trials... this round is simply a part of a four corners losing strategy to stall as long as possible.

[pete myers]

charitable coverage of our former senator handpicked by Dick Cheney Any coverage belongs in the Crime section and should focus on his court costs as well as the financial harm he continues to perpetuate on MN with his persistent whining. Bush was the worst Pres. ever and Coleman the worst Sen ever. Go reap all your paybacks as a lobbyist and get outta my newspaper you petty crook.

[REPUBLICHRIST]

when you remember, its all the same

[Bill]

I do think Norm Coleman will be seated if their is a fair election. We need Norm Colemans' leadership abilities during these difficult times. Only Norm has the political experience to lead us.

[GWJr]

ah , fool norm once , ah , fool norm twice , ah , norm got fooled again , hehehehe.

[Sean]

So now because he pretty much knows he's lost, he wants them to backtrack and count all those other absentee ballots that they refused to admit in the first place?

Norm should just realize it's over and concede, without ruining his reputation any further...although some might think that ship has already sailed.

[Chip]

Flatblade wrote:

All recount, contest and election fans should read the stuff that Eric Black writes in minnpost. Here is his analysis of Coleman's final brief: http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2009/05/15/...
It is very significant that there may not be enough rejected absentee ballots that were proven by Coleman to be legitimately cast to turn the election, so even if the court has some sympathy for Coleman's "similarly situated" case, it may not matter.
On a related matter, doesn't it make sense that the ECC (a court of law) should demand proof that the ballots submitted for cosideration are legitimate? The ballots in question were rejected at least twice each. The Coleman-Franken case is adversarial, if Coleman could get an advantage, that is what his lawyers are supposed to do. Coleman's team had a chance to examine all the ballots, and contact most of the possible voters (to determine who they might have voted for)--the situation doesn't mirror either the original vote count or the recount.

Black's article is helpful - thanks. I'm not sure how many votes are at stake with each of the five changes that the Coleman team suggests be made to the criteria for accepting absentee ballots. I wonder if there is clue, though, in the number of ballots that they submitted for reconsideration at the end of the appeal - something like 1300, wasn't it? Were these the ones received in an official envelope? Or official envelope and at least one other validating mark (MN citizens signature, for example)? Does anyone know?

[Kathy]

Coleman has to delay as much as possible. He has been named in a lawsuit, with John Cornyn on campaign finance violations, fraud, and also is involved with the Texas Billionaire Stanford.

As a regular citizen does anyone here think that a court would extend my time on a case filed in court until the election results are in.

So, if Coleman gets in, we have yet another GOP leader in trouble with eithics.

This is getting old. Coleman needs to give it up.

[Lawrence]

Chip wrote:

<quoted text>
Black's article is helpful - thanks. I'm not sure how many votes are at stake with each of the five changes that the Coleman team suggests be made to the criteria for accepting absentee ballots. I wonder if there is clue, though, in the number of ballots that they submitted for reconsideration at the end of the appeal - something like 1300, wasn't it? Were these the ones received in an official envelope? Or official envelope and at least one other validating mark (MN citizens signature, for example)? Does anyone know?

Chip, I believe Mr. Black thinks that the Coleman team believes that the 5 changes will cover about 4500 or so ballots that were initially submitted to be counted. Mr. Black has suggested that the change permitting a ballot to be counted without proof of registration may generate the largest number of ballots to be counted.

But I believe this avenue of counting ballots really becomes just a distraction.

Given that all the ballots to be reviewed have been proven non-compliant with Minnesota statues by both election officials and the EEC, I cannot see a way that the MnSC could permit a remedy that would involve counting any of these ballots.

In my view the only real question of relevance is: Can a case be made for an equal rights violation?

If the MnSC rules that a violation has occurred, the most likely remedy will be to declare the election invalid - not to count ballots known to be non-compliant with Minnesota statues.

[Outside Looking In]

As someone from another state watching whats going on in Minnesota...Really folks just have a special election and get it over with. Even a coin toss would be better than all of this. You folks are becoming the Florida of 2008/2009. However that being said for all you who think Norm should give it up...where you saying that when Norm was ahead on election night? Or are you just wanting him to quit because your man is ahead. If you're not going to have a special election then I say Norm should fight and fight with all he's got and if it was the other way then I would say Franken should fight too. But there comes a time when you should just have a do-over and Minnesota your are there.

[Chip]

Lawrence wrote:

<quoted text>
Chip, I believe Mr. Black thinks that the Coleman team believes that the 5 changes will cover about 4500 or so ballots that were initially submitted to be counted. Mr. Black has suggested that the change permitting a ballot to be counted without proof of registration may generate the largest number of ballots to be counted.
But I believe this avenue of counting ballots really becomes just a distraction.
Given that all the ballots to be reviewed have been proven non-compliant with Minnesota statues by both election officials and the EEC, I cannot see a way that the MnSC could permit a remedy that would involve counting any of these ballots.
In my view the only real question of relevance is: Can a case be made for an equal rights violation?
If the MnSC rules that a violation has occurred, the most likely remedy will be to declare the election invalid - not to count ballots known to be non-compliant with Minnesota statues.

Yeah, I'd agree with you that the chance that the MnSC will accept the counting of ballots that don't conform to MN law is close to nil. "Uncounting" ballots already counted cannot be done, at least not fairly, since it could only be done by applying some sort of statistical analysis, and estimating the votes to be uncounted.

Precedents in other states would suggest that the chances of the MnSC calling a new election are also very low. As for a federal appeal, the equal protection argument is weak in this case. Bascially, a good case would involve systematic disenfranchisement of an identifiable class of people. I don't see that here. I doubt that a Federal Appeals court will hear it, but with politics, anything is possible.