by hilzoy
"After a trial spanning nearly three months, Norm Coleman's attempt to reverse Al Franken's lead in the recount of the U.S. Senate election was soundly rejected today by a three-judge panel that dismissed the Republican’s lawsuit.
The judges swept away Coleman's argument that the election and its aftermath were fraught with systemic errors that made the results invalid.
“The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the Nov. 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately,” the panel said in its unanimous decision.
In rejecting Coleman’s arguments, the panel said the Republican essentially asked it to ignore Minnesota election requirements and adopt a more lenient standard allowing illegal absentee ballots to be counted."
"While some election law experts say it's unlikely that Coleman, a Republican, could win in federal court, his party might have much to gain. A federal challenge could leave a Minnesota U.S. Senate seat vacant for another six months or more, depriving Democrats of a vote needed to pass some of President Obama's agenda in the event of GOP filibusters.
The success of such a "scorched-earth" strategy, as one political scientist dubs a federal appeal, depends heavily on the definition of state courts."
How are the voters of Minnesota feeling about the Republican Party that’s decided to deprive them of representation for months (or years) just to make things harder for President Obama?
Well, Coleman might think that having a Democrat in general or Franken is particular would be worse than having no no one at all…but I don’t believe that. It’s all about partisan politics. And doing the one thing that all Republicans want to do: tick off Democrats for sake ticking them off.
Sure, David, but only a small minority of Minnesota voters are Republicans so partisan that they think that way, so even partisan Minnesota Republican politicians should be worrying that this strategy is going to cost them. But Republicans everywhere seem to be maintaining amazing discipline in marching in lock step over the cliff.
Well, Mr. Hunt, the GOP appears to have succeeded beyond its wildest expectations, as it has irreverably hardend feelings of 75% of the population against them…..sheere political genius, akin to the post Civil War Spanish anarchist bombers of yore…..the nobility of their failure exceeded only by the abjectness of….their failure.
And they dare call themselves “grown ups”?
Please take a moment to read Mr. Martin’s recent entry below: “why Larison Should Have Douthat’s Job”
I wonder how it would change things if, after a certain amount of time appealing things, the time spent without a Senator was deducted from the term of the next Senator to win from the same party as the person who lost the suit …
I know, I know, never going to happen.
How are the voters of Minnesota feeling about the Republican Party that’s decided to deprive them of representation for months (or years) just to make things harder for President Obama?
I’m pissed as hell. I don’t think the others are taking it too well, either. There’s a possibility that Pawlenty is killing his re-election chances next year.
If they don’t seat him after Minn S Ct declines review, they should basically go nuclear on filibuster. this is just outrageous not to seat him — and it’s blatantly unconstitutional
There’s a big difference between what Senate Democrats should do and will do. If Coleman were ahead and Republicans had the majority he’d have been seated long ago, with perhaps a mild expression of displeasure from Reid. But with Democrats in charge, nothing’s going to happen until Pawlenty decides to certify Franken as the winner.
For cloture purposes Coleman is effectively keeping his seat. The current situation is no different than if Coleman had simply won. That illustrates the silliness of the absolute 60-vote requirement, among other things.
If Coleman genuinely thinks that Franken stole the election, he should fight this to the very end. Not because of this seat, but because of future elections; Nothing encourages more theft like the sight of a thief keeping his booty without a fight.
If he didn’t think the seat was stolen, he shouldn’t have been fighting from day one.
One thing is clear, though, whether or not you think Franken was put over the top, or Coleman nearly so, by dodgy means: Our election system desperately needs a major overhaul. The idea of having the low level mechanics, where dirty deeds are easiest to pull off and hardest to prove, run by committed partisans, is Nuts with a capital N.
Nobody is in a better position to steal an election than the people administering it, and we deliberately make sure they’re people with motive. Insane.
Not because of this seat, but because of future elections; Nothing encourages more theft like the sight of a thief keeping his booty without a fight.
George W. Bush, 2001-2009, yeah right. But I suspect the message Coleman got from that was that Republicans are allowed to steal elections.
Our election system desperately needs a major overhaul.
We’ve known that since Bush stole Florida in November 2000. Nice to see you catching up, Brett!
We’ve known that long before the Florida Supreme court failed in it’s attempt to appoint the next President of the US.
We’ve known that long before the Florida Supreme court failed in it’s attempt to appoint the next President of the US.
You know, I was a pretty crazed right-winger back in Nov/Dec 2000, and in law school to boot so I had time to follow this pretty closely, and not once did it occur to me or did I read, hear, or see, anyone state that the Florida Supreme court was trying to appoint the next POTUS. So I’m just going to put that one down as some crazy-ass batsh1t.
its. “it’s” is a contraction of “it is”, which is not what you mean to say here, methinks.
Aside from that, I advise against this kind of discussion with Jesurgislac. She and you will wind up peppering each other with counterarguments, each of you influencing the other’s position not at all. Best to save the wear and tear on your fingers, IMO.
I advise against this kind of discussion with Jesurgislac. She and you will wind up peppering each other with counterarguments, each of you influencing the other’s position not at all.
Salty, Slartibartfast. After all, the US does now have a President who actually won an election… and if Brett is coming on board late to the idea that the US needs a thorough overhall of its electoral system to bring it into the 21st century, well, it’s not like it could have happened under Bush, is it?
And you’re just the person to tell us what we need? Interesting. All kinds of questionable premises, there, as well as a question of standing.
And you’re just the person to tell us what we need? Interesting. All kinds of questionable premises, there, as well as a question of standing.
Wow. *checks posting rules* You know, I can’t find a requirement there that says “Non-Americans not allowed to comment on US elections or electoral process”. If you wish to institute such a requirement, I’m sure you have better standing with the kitten than I do. And if the rule is instituted that on Obsidian Wings only US citizens may comment on US elections, I’ll certainly obey it.
As for why I do feel free to comment on the US’s broken electoral system – as a direct result, the US gave the world President George W. Bush, for eight years, during which he did a vast degree of damage to other nations and peoples and to the world as a whole. Had the US had a working system, we might have had President Gore from 2001 to 2009; had the US acknowledged the system was broken and stepped in to fix it after Bush stole Florida, we might still have President Kerry from 2005. Either way, a lot less damage would have been done, and a lot of deaths of avoided.
Yes, until someone makes a formal rule saying non-Americans not allowed to comment here about such things, I do damn well think I have a right to comment on your damnable, screwed-up, electoral system!
Checking my last reply, I don’t find any reference to the Posting Rules at all. I have no idea what you could be thinking, here.
The US does have a working system, Jes. It just doesn’t work the way you want it to.
That’s what I mean by standing. What you want, and what you think is right in this case, has absolutely no relevance. You don’t get a vote.
You might be able to sway opinions, though, if you cared to.
And you’re just the person to tell us what we need? Interesting. All kinds of questionable premises, there, as well as a question of standing.
If you weren’t referring to the posting rules, which certainly do control what can and can’t be said on this blog, what on earth else could you have been talking about?
Of course, rather than making deliberately cryptic comments, you could explain exactly what you mean… oh wait, we’ve been here before. This is where you make a series of increasingly cryptic and angry comments complaining that what you meant was perfectly clear, but refusing to explain what you meant. Okay. I’ll just take it that this is another inexplicable Slarti-ism, and move on.
…and, slightly OT, what on earth has happened to the HTML on this blog? emphasis ought to be italicised; but so should italics and of course the first paragraph of my comment just before this…. ???
I never said anything at all regarding what you can and can’t say on this blog, Jesurgislac. You just made that part up.
She said angrily, after having made a cryptic comment to the effect that our electoral system is in need of a thorough overhaul. What does Jes mean by that? We may never find out.
Me, I’m practically asleep, I’m that hopping mad.
Deep thought: If Al Franken was in Norm Coleman’s position, the press would be just as patient with Franken’s umpteenth appeal. There would be no calls for Franken to do the right thing from the very serious village.
Slart, thanks for the graphic demonstration of why I should drop it. Much obliged! 😉
At any rate, can we all agree election administration should not be in the hands of partisan office holders?
I’d like to see a sort of “election corps” you could volunteer to spend a few years in, and get randomly assigned to some precinct. Never going to happen, of course; The current system produces the incumbants who get to decide if it’s changed, and why would they mess with the system that keeps them in office?
At any rate, can we all agree election administration should not be in the hands of partisan office holders?
Yes.
I’d like to see a sort of “election corps” you could volunteer to spend a few years in, and get randomly assigned to some precinct. Never going to happen, of course; The current system produces the incumbants who get to decide if it’s changed, and why would they mess with the system that keeps them in office?
Is the behavior of election officials at the lowest level our biggest problem? I didn’t think it was.
And I don’t think incumbents rely on the current set of election operators to stay in office; I mean, incumbents win independent polls in addition to elections because incumbency is extremely popular. Any remotely fair system of election operation is not going to affect incumbent reelection rates.
In addition, I don’t think the reason your plan won’t happen has much to do with incumbents interests per se. Rather, I think the idea will be expensive and logistically difficult. If you want to assign people to some precinct far from their home, you have to shell out money to house and transport them. And the amount of randomization you can perform is greatly limited by how fragmented our election system is: every state and municipality gets to make their own laws. Until you can bring about massive consolidation to elections, the election corps idea seems impossible. The sort of consolidation we need is hardly unprecedented; we’ve achieved something similar in the commercial domain with the uniform commercial code.
The US does have a working system, Jes. It just doesn’t work the way you want it to.
Sounds like the excuses we get for StarWars.
Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) ‘ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o’clock alarm call!
(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Mr. Praline: Now that’s what I call a dead parrot.
Owner: No, no…..No, ‘e’s stunned!
Deep thought: If Al Franken was in Norm Coleman’s position, the press would be just as patient with Franken’s umpteenth appeal. There would be no calls for Franken to do the right thing from the very serious village.
[rimshot]
Nice one, Eric.
At any rate, can we all agree election administration should not be in the hands of partisan office holders?
Yes.
Fairly obviously, you need something like an Electoral Commission – independent, non-partisan, staffed with paid employees, whose role is to ensure that every election at every level of government is carried out freely and fairly. You cannot do this with volunteer labor*, and you cannot do this unless everyone employed by the commission understands their job requires them to stay independent of party politics and their goal is to ensure integrity and public confidence in the democratic process.
Of course, to get that, you would need cross-party support for such a commission…
Yes!
“At some point, when the chances of winning get sufficiently remote, a person who cared about his state would think: I am depriving my state of its normal complement of Congressional representatives. In so doing, I am harming my state, and I am doing so in order to prolong a lawsuit that I am very unlikely to win.”
However, if the person is thinking “I’ve lost my seat, how can I maximize my chances of a wingnut welfare sinecure, especially as there’s lots of unemployed former Bushies on the market depresses the job market”, then keeping the number of Dem senators down to 58 for long as possible becomes an imperative for future earning power.
“every election at every level of government is carried out freely and fairly.”
That would take, I should think, hundreds of thousands, if not even millions, of people per year, given the number of elections that take place down to small villages in the U.S. Neither would muncipalities, towns, counties, and villages, welcome federal administration of their elections, nor see any need. In fact, most of them wouldn’t have any need.
Neither would states, for the most part, want such administration. This idea isn’t politically in the ball park, isn’t practical, and boils down to “America should do it like Britain, even though the size and scale of elections there are nothing like ours.”
Some things don’t scale well.
Slarti, I notice you didn’t actually answer Jesu’s question. What did you mean by denying that she had “standing” to comment on the US electoral system?
I didn’t say she didn’t have standing to comment. I did answer Jes’ question: That’s what I mean by standing. What you want, and what you think is right in this case, has absolutely no relevance. You don’t get a vote.
You might be able to sway opinions, though, if you cared to.
Put another way: Jesurgislac’s opinion to the effect that our electoral system is broken is without any value. Her opinions regarding how to fix it may be of value, if they’re persuasive, but in any event she doesn’t get a vote in the matter, any more than I get a vote in matters of how things should get done in the UK.
Not that I care all that much about how things are done in the UK. It’s their business, really, just as it’s our business how things get done in the US.
At the risk of repeating myself: she’s free to say whatever she pleases in blog comments or anywhere else.
Put another way: Jesurgislac’s opinion to the effect that our electoral system is broken is without any value.
A petty and gratuitous swipe.
@Slarti: I’ll be sure to apply your standard the next time you express an opinion on events outside U.S. borders.