Another Lawsuit Norm Coleman Can Look Forward to Losing
Al Franken will be certified as the winner next Monday in the Minnesota race for Senator against Republican Norm Coleman. It took a protracted recount process, at the end of which Franken was up by about the same number of votes as the initial count had him down by, a little over 200.
Expect Norm Coleman’s campaign to make a pro forma complaint that will in due time be dismissed. Suing other people just seems to be what happens when Coleman is thwarted.
Just out of curiosity, Wesley, would it make any difference to you if there was actual evidence that Franken stole the election? Or are you simply happy that the Democrat won and the Republican lost, no matter how it was accomplished?
If someone is guilty of voter fraud, produce the evidence and remove them from office.
In other words, yeah, I’m for consistency in application of the rules.
BTW, can you point me to your expressions of concern over the process re Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?
The lawsuit is needed since it’s so close, because various items can be looked over and investigated which were not during the recount such as claims rejected absentee ballots, votes being double counted, voter fraud, and any other irregularities or errors. It’s highly unlikely the lawsuit will be outright dismissed, more than likely it will be looked into and a ruling will be made which will validate the election one way or the other depending upon what evidence is brought up in court.
As the old saying goes, I think Al Gore was the one who first coined the term for motivation in lawsuits and appeals during and after a recount process. “Every Vote Should Count!”
BTW, can you point me to your expressions of concern over the process re Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?
I never got a clear description of what happened in Ohio in 2004, therefore I have no opinion on it one way or the other.
I wasn’t posting on the Web in any meaningful sense in 2000, so no, I can’t give you a link regarding my opinion on the Florida fiasco. But I can tell you I argued quite vehemently that that election had to be settled by the law. And I’m satisfied that it was. (Yes, I know the actual facts of the Florida fiasco. Do you?) I can also tell you that the attempt by the Gore campaign to steal that election was the beginning of the end of my belief that bipartisanship and mutual respect are still possible in American politics. Any entity that will try that hard to steal an election, in blatant violation of the law, the facts, and common decency, and then try to claim the other side was really at fault … is not an entity that deserves or can be trusted with power.
In this case, several websites, most noticeably Power Line Blog, have produced thorough and careful analyses of the evidence for miscounting and outright vote fraud in Minnesota. Their evidence is at least sufficient to warrant a second examination of the votes and the counting process.
Certainly, a SCOTUS decision counts as “settled by the law”. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the SCOTUS actually got it right, though; the decision is widely controversial among legal scholars. The Florida recount did not and could not address the voter suppression issue, which should count as one of those “actual facts” relevant to discussion of election procedure.
Given the opportunity to continue to argue and litigate concerning the Florida vote following the Bush v. Gore SCOTUS decision, Gore instead conceded. It seems a bit out of character for someone playing the role of “The Grinch Who Killed Bipartisanship”. The Bush Administration installed hordes of partisan ideologues who acted as flappers and editors of scientific research conducted under government auspices; how did Al Gore manage to convince the administration to do that?
Back to Minnesota and now. Miscounting seems a banal thing to point out… it is what a recount is supposed to fix. “Outright vote fraud”… I’m afraid I’m not seeing it in that post. If the author is correct, there are grounds for saying that errors occur in the process. But a charge of fraud requires evidence beyond simple error, and that appears conspicuous by its absence.
The New York Times points out that Coleman’s lawsuit could have motivations in national politics:
New York Times opinion piece is hearsay. And even with hearsay they are unsure if he would really get valuable brownie points.
When Al Gore exhausted all his options by taking his appeals to the US Supreme Court, he certainly got brownie points from Dem leaders. But those brownie points didn’t help his political career after the 2000 election.
As far as the Al Franken vote, should the recount stand in court the vote would have no affect on the Obama administration’s policies. So there is no motivation to tie this up in court for months because of what Al Franken might vote on.
But Al Gore did not exhaust his options. The SCOTUS decision of December 12th, 2000 left open Gore returning to the courts in Florida. He conceded instead.
I think it’s a bit early to say what difference one vote in the Senate might do, or its absence. Nor does motivation always correspond to what one or the other of us see as rational.
Well, yes, I was right, Norm Coleman did end up losing this one.
Wikipedia article
Coleman managed to stretch out the process to the middle of the year.