But let's not forget that this decision benefits Al Franken as well, despite the implications of Eric's article. If Franken needs some money, he can now get it.

I don't see anything wrong with the FEC's decision.

In any case, this is what mandamus is for.

It's not bush v. gore, but that's what they're arguing. My point is just that Kennedy may be more sympathetic to an equal protection argument in an election case than one might think.

In any case, the Minn. S.Ct. has already basically said that when the state litigation is done, the winner will get the certificate. The problem for Coleman is that he doesn't have a federal issue on which to appeal. The contest court has all but summarily rejected his constitutional arguments on the grounds, essentially, that they are a court of limited jurisdiction that is not competent to hear the constitutional equal protection claim that he is raising. The only remaining issues on appeal will be entirely based in state law.

They lost. They don't even have anything on appeal. It's sad how comically incompetent they have been. They missed the crucial point: In races for federal offices, the only issue in an election contest is who got the most votes. The constitutional issues cannot be properly raised at all, even on appeal. The Minnesota Supreme Court will review the trial court's decision for any misapplication of state law as it is related to the counting of ballots. Constitutional issues won't be relevant.

To get to the Constitutional issues, he'll have to file another suit in federal court. But by that time, the appeal will be over, and Franken will have his election certificate. If Franken is sitting in the Senate, i.e. if the Senate accepts his certificate and thereby inherently judges the election returns to be proper, there won't be any recourse left for Coleman.

The whole thing is over, they just don't know it yet.

Dum de dum dum dum.

2. The BvG angle here is not about voter intent but rather absentee ballots that were improperly accepted. It's weird, but that's what they got. So, the standards would be irrelevant to Coleman's potential claim.

i don't think coleman wins on this. the court may take it for fun, but it's a loser of a case and it won't stop franken from being seated. the state supreme court has already indicated that if franken wins the contest and any appeal, a certificate of election will be issued for him. that will be enough to get him seated in the senate, federal lawsuits be damned.

The contest court can't grant him that remedy. The Supreme Court might be able to. I doubt they will, however, since that would essentially invalidate every single election ever.

See this: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/comments/articles.php?ID=5273

This really is it for Coleman. He doesn't have anything else.

If that's right, it could be over this afternoon if Franken's lawyers are bold enough to move for a directed verdict. All that means is that Coleman didn't make a prima facie case that the election ought to be overturned. If the court agreed, the whole thing's over with.

Franken has his own counterclaims though, and some of them are similar to Coleman's claims, especially regarding rejected absentee ballots. So, they probably won't move for a directed verdict. Instead, Franken now makes his case on his counterclaims, his defenses to Coleman's claims, and provides any evidence he has to dispute Coleman's evidence. Yes, it could go on for a few more weeks, but Franken's lawyers seem to know what they're doing. So, if they're efficient, it shouldn't take too much longer.

What's funny about this letter is that the lawyers are forced to bring in examples from other jurisdictions. They are not making any argument about the authority of the court to grant this remedy. They are just saying that people have done this in other states. I would really doubt they could win this argument if they sought that remedy from the court. See Minn. Stat. Sec. 209.07, Subd. 1 (https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=209.07) which grants the contest court the authority to revoke a certificate of election when the contestant (in this case Coleman) succeeds. No mention of the court having the authority to invalidate the entire election.

That said, in my humble opinion, they have a legitimate argument that the court needs to change its rulings on some ballots the court has already ordered counted. Don't worry, kiddies, it's less than 40 ballots from Franken supporters whose votes were not counted in recount. So, if the court reversed on those ballots, it would not even reduce Franken's 225 vote lead.

1. Do you want Joe the Plumber to run for Congress?

2. What are the five most important moments in American history?

As for the first, I overheard some hill staffers talking about Mr. the Plumber and saying that he could be making a run at the House. Personally, I would love to see that since it would conclusively demonstrate their desire to lose all power.

And the second, I just want to know what they would say. For me the five most important moments are the writing of the Constitution, Lincoln restoring the Union, the Reconstruction Amendments ending slavery et al, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights Movement. What's striking about these are that none of them are conservative moments or can be counted as such. But we all share the same history, I just wonder what they think is most important.

"Republicans Decide to Fuck State"

Headline just for Bobby Jindal:

"Jindal Sacrifices Louisiana to his Ambition"

Got a cite?

First, the voter is not seeking redress here. Norm Coleman is, and election contests exist to ensure that all ballots are properly counted and the election was administer properly. So, it's kind of irrelevant what remedy the jailbird could seek under law.

Second, the law is quite clear on this point. Minn. Stat. 203B.06 Sub. 2 states, "If for any reason an application for absentee ballots is submitted to the wrong county auditor or municipal clerk, that official shall promptly forward it to the proper county auditor or municipal clerk." Emphasis added.

Now, there are facts we don't know. We don't know if the jailbird wrote his correct registration address on his ballot application. If he did not, I will happily agree that the election officials made no mistake in sending him the ballot for the county where he is jailed. But if he put his correct address on the application, the officials failed in their duty to forward the application to the correct county.

Since the voter is not seeking redress but Norm Coleman is seeking all proper votes to be counted, it is perfectly reasonable to count this as a properly cast ballot.

I would not argue for counting his other votes on the ballot, but since this is a statewide race, it is acceptable.

I don't know where you all are getting this idea that "voters are responsible for voting properly." By that standard, tons of votes shouldn't be counted. If someone doesn't mark their ballot correctly, their vote shouldn't be counted. If someone misunderstands the ballot instructions, their vote should not be counted.

You're setting up a standard that would disenfranchise people unnecessarily. The goal of voting laws is to ensure that everyone gets to vote and the process is reasonably organized to prevent fraud--that is to enfranchise and not disenfranchise.

Unless you all can demonstrate some fraud in this case, your argument isn't very strong. The guy made a mistake, that is not fraud.