Coleman-Franken Senate Race May Hinge on Bush v. Gore Decision

[babylonsister]

Coleman-Franken Senate Race May Hinge on Bush v. Gore Decision

By Greg Stohr


April 8 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Norm Coleman’s dwindling chances of reclaiming his U.S. Senate seat largely depend on a broad reading of the Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision, a ruling the court itself said should be applied sparingly.

Democrat Al Franken’s lead over Coleman in the Minnesota race widened to 312 votes yesterday -- a gain of 87 -- because of a court-supervised count of 351 additional absentee ballots.

Coleman’s remaining legal avenues include his claim that election officials violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause by using varying standards to decide the validity of absentee ballots. That contention relies on Bush v. Gore, the 5-4 ruling that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush.

“As a practical matter, Coleman has no realistic prospect of success without the equal protection argument,” said Edward Foley, director of the election-law program at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law in Columbus.

Democrats control the U.S. Senate 58-41, and a win by Franken would put them one vote short of the 60 needed to overcome filibusters that can stall legislation.

The candidates are awaiting a three-judge panel’s final decision in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Coleman’s challenge to the earlier recount that put Franken, 57, ahead in the race. Should Coleman lose, he could appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court and, ultimately, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his equal protection argument.

Bush v. Gore Ruling

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aHkbTzPvQ9kY

[SpiralHawk]

1. Whiney, sore loser Republicon chickenhawks

Pathetic

[Mister Ed]

2. The gist of the artical, though, is that Coleman doesn't stand a snowball's chance

For example:

‘Specific Standards’

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that if a state fails to adopt ‘specific standards’ during a statewide recount that will ensure ‘equal application’ to all votes, the lack of uniform standards violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment,” Coleman argued, quoting from Bush v. Gore.

Minnesota's legal standards regarding recounts are extremely specific, concise, and uniform.

[w4rma]

6. Did the article mention that "Bush v. Gore" said specifically not to use it as a precident in it's

majority ruling?

[Mister Ed]

7. Yes

Should Coleman lose, he could ...ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his equal protection argument.

Bush v. Gore Ruling

Winning with that argument won’t be easy. When the Supreme Court ruled for Bush over Democrat Al Gore on Dec. 12, 2000, the five justices in the majority went out of their way to caution against application of the decision in other contexts.

[tekisui]

3. I will bet money that the Supreme Court won't hear the case.

It will never make it to the SCOTUS. If their argument hinges of bush v. Gore, that means Coleman doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There aren't even similarities in the cases. bush had a recount stopped, and the Court ruled that it couldn't restart, and the FL SoS had to act by a certain date, it was all time sensitive.

The MN Senate race has followed the legal channels, held the recount, counted all the ballots. There is not room for Coleman to claim grievances.

This is just to prolong the inevitable. The Supreme Court will not take the case, Sen. Franken will be seated.

[COLGATE4]

4. Once Franken wins at the MN Supreme Court level

his attorneys should be able to request that the MNSC issue a Writ of Mandamus requiring Pawlenty and the SOS (who is already willing) to certify Franken's election. If they do not, then Coleman can (and undoubtedly will) appeal through the Federal Courts, which, even if eventually unsuccessful (SCOTUS refusing to take the case) will still consume a long time, probably a year and a half.

[UTUSN]

5. You mean the FIX (uh, "decision") that said itself was NOT supposed to be a precedent?!1 n/t