St. Paul -- A top Senate Republican said yesterday his caucus would block any attempt to seat the winner of Minnesota's close election until an anticipated court case is finished and an official election certificate is issued.
Franken ahead by 49 -- GOP senators to block seating Minnesota winner
Sat, 2009-01-03 13:10
#1
Cueball
Franken ahead by 49 -- GOP senators to block seating Minnesota winner
Sat, 2009-01-03 14:08
#2
remind
Oh my goodness, Franken ahead by 49 is just too sweet to hear, I wonder what our resident from St Paul has to say about this?
Poor sports those GOP, at least Gore had the graciousness not to prolong it, though one wishes he had.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Sat, 2009-01-03 15:36
#3
Malcolm
Part of the problem is that, in US politics, the right and wrong of these kinds of issues is entirely dictated by partisan interest, not by the rules and the facts on the ground. Thus Republicans are arguing that a Franken recount victory is inherently illegitimate. If the situation had been reversed and Coleman come from behind for a narrow recount victory, they'd be arguing exactly the opposite.
I cannot imagine a Canadian context where the legislature would attempt to overrule a duly constituted recount.
This is the danger of an "ends justifies the means" application of rules.
Sat, 2009-01-03 16:33
#4
I cannot imagine a Canadian context where the legislature would attempt to overrule a duly constituted recount.
Although in the event of a close election, don't rule out the Cons trying something like this.
Sat, 2009-01-03 19:58
#5
After counting of wrongly stricken absentee ballots, Franken's lead up to 225.
Sat, 2009-01-03 20:05
#6
thanks for that josh. I don't see how they can deny seating him with a lead like that. Is this normal in the US?
Sat, 2009-01-03 20:18
#7
Denying a seat to a certified election winner? I can't recall it ever happening.
Sat, 2009-01-03 20:24
#8
ElizaQ
Well this is really sad and disheartening. I was rooting for the lizard people.
The big question I have though, is who is going to play him on SNL? 
Sun, 2009-01-04 00:13
#9
Part of the problem is that, in US politics, the right and wrong of these kinds of issues is entirely dictated by partisan interest, not by the rules and the facts on the ground. Thus Republicans are arguing that a Franken recount victory is inherently illegitimate. If the situation had been reversed and Coleman come from behind for a narrow recount victory, they'd be arguing exactly the opposite.
I cannot imagine a Canadian context where the legislature would attempt to overrule a duly constituted recount.
This is the danger of an "ends justifies the means" application of rules.
Though technically, this dilemma works both ways, i.e. if the situation was reversed, sure the Republicans would claim legitimacy--but the Democrats wouldn't, raising the Bush/Gore spectre, etc.
And as far as legislature overruling a duly constituted recount, there's one valid way of doing it: in case of a thoroughly deadlocked situation, run the election all over again--New Hampshire did it in 1974/75. And in Canada, it took a 1990 byelection to make Maurizio Bevilacqua's disputed 1988 recount-after-recount squeaker into a legitimate victory.
Sun, 2009-01-04 02:30
#10
Malcolm
In Canada, a close result can be "controverted" by the courts. This requires sufficient evidence that the number of proven irregularities significantly outnumbers the margin of victory. I'm aware of at least three successful controverts in Saskatchewan history. (Kelvington 1967, Prince Albert - Duck Lake 1982 and Wood River 1999). This is what would have happened in the Bevilaqua case adma refers to.
Notionally, you just need to prove that the number of irregularities exceeds the margin. But if you prove nine irregularities on an eight vote margin, it would mean you're assuming that all the irregularities were to the disadvantage of the second place party, which is mathematically dubious. In practice the number of irregularities would need to be something more than double the margin.
In any event, the certified winner of the election is nonetheless seated as the MP / MLA / MNA / MHA / MPP. If the court application for a controvert is granted, the seat is then declared vacant and a byelection held.
In those three Saskatchewan examples:
- The Liberal won Kelvington in 1967 and the NDP won the byelection (becoming the first New Democrat elected to the SK Leg since candidates in the general had been elected as CCF. The CCF-NDP's lawyer was, ironically, the son of a Liberal MLA and a future Liberal MLA and federal Liberal candidate himself, Tony Merchant
- The NDP won PA - Duck Lake in 1982, but lost the byelection to the PCs
- The Liberals won Wood River in 1999 but lost the byelection too the SaskParty.
Mon, 2009-01-05 12:01
#11
"Al Franken will be declared the winner of the closely-contested Minnesota Senate race against Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) this afternoon.
The state's is scheduled to meet at 3:30 this afternoon where it is expected to certify that Franken has defeated Coleman by 225 votes out of over 2.9 million ballots cast. After election officials added over 900 improperly rejected absentee ballots to the count this weekend, Franken expanded his lead.
A pending decision from the state Supreme Court could delay the declaration. Coleman’s campaign has asked the court to include some 600 absentee ballots that it claims were improperly excluded during the recount.
The Coleman campaign has also signaled it will be contesting the final election result in court, arguing that some ballots were counted twice during the recount. If Coleman’s campaign contested the results, Franken would not be certified as the official winner until all the legal challenges are resolved -- and the seat would likely remain vacant for weeks"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0109/Franken_to_be_certified_as_winner.html
Wed, 2009-01-07 07:00
#12
"The day after the Senate recount ended, Republican Norm Coleman filed suit to overturn Democrat Al Franken's apparent victory.
. . . .
the filing blocks Franken from receiving an election certificate, the traditional calling card winners use as their credentials to join Congress, and leaves Minnesota with one senator for now.
. . . .
The trial must start within three weeks.
Fritz Knaak, a Coleman attorney, said the trial could last into March. And that, he said, was an optimistic estimate.
The issues the Coleman campaign raises are vast.
They consist primarily of the four the campaign often cited during the recount: alleged double-counted votes; inconsistent treatment of wrongly rejected absentee ballots; counting of Election Day votes to substitute for ballots that were missing in Minneapolis; and ballots that were found and counted during the recount but not counted Election Day."
Wed, 2009-01-07 16:07
#13
blairz
Recounts can be contentious, but nothing is really "normal" any more after Bush v Gore. One really weird thing about that descision is that the court stressed that it was not setting a precedent to be followed in subsequent cases. I still think Lawyers will try and use that case to over turn recounts.
I expect the Supremes to demur if Coleman is foolish enough to push it that far.
Thu, 2009-01-29 13:40
#14
Trial on Coleman's lawsuit underway.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4j...