CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
March 24, 2009 – 10:37 p.m.
A Winner in Minnesota or More Election Fatigue?
By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff
It’s not clear when the 2008 Minnesota Senate race is going to end. What is clear is state voters are tiring of the nearly five-month-long process, and the politics involved in determining a winner are becoming as nuanced as the election’s legal disputes.
A three-judge panel is deliberating an election challenge brought by Norm Coleman, the Republican nominee, after a statewide recount found him trailing Democrat Al Franken by a mere 225 votes out of 2.9 million cast.
Neither candidate, however, is inclined to let those judges have the final word.
“I think that we’ve been trying this case with the appeal record in mind,” one of Coleman’s attorneys, Joe Friedberg, said in a recent radio interview.
In that broadcast, Friedberg told KFAN’s Ron Rosenbaum it is “probably correct that Franken will still be ahead and probably by a little bit more,” after the current court challenge.
Coleman, attending a Republican caucus lunch on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, said he wasn’t ruling more legal challenges “in or out.”
“My goal is to make sure that every legally cast vote is counted and counted using the same standard,” he said. “I am hopeful that will be done in a Minnesota court. If it takes an appellate level to do that, we have to look at that.”
Franken is also making an appearance in Washington, D.C., this week — he is slated to receive an award for his volunteer service to the United Services Organization (USO) on Wednesday.
National Republican leaders are prepared to strongly back Coleman if the recount goes to federal court.
“I think there’s a live U.S. constitutional issue that would be one that might go all the way to the United States Supreme Court,” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Tuesday. “I hope he doesn’t run out of gas too soon because it’s an important issue to the voters in Minnesota, and I think it’s an important constitutional issue, too.”
Such appeals have the potential to delay a final ruling until May or June.
Win, Lose or Draw
A federal appeal is bound to start a renewed fight over certifying a winner in the race, with Gov. Tim Pawlenty , a Republican, squarely in the middle.
The Minnesota Supreme Court, in a March 6 ruling denying Franken’s attempt to be certified the provisional winner, indicated that a winner could not be certified until after election challenges have been decided in the state courts.
Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann said that ruling “reinforces our belief that once any appeal to the Minnesota Supreme court is finalized, that at that point the governor and the secretary of state could issue an election certificate.”
Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said by e-mail that the governor “will follow the law and the determinations of the courts.”
“The recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision indicated that an election certificate could be issued once the state courts process is complete,” McClung wrote. “However, if one of the parties appeals to a federal court, a question will arise whether the federal court might stay the issuance of a certificate. We’ll see what the courts determine.”
The Franken campaign can be expected to challenge Pawlenty or anyone else who attempts to delay the certification process after an eventual ruling by the state Supreme Court.
“The Franken people will be all over [Pawlenty] to force” a certification, predicted Sarah Janecek, a Republican commentator and publisher of the newsletter Politics in Minnesota.
When the time comes for a certification decision, the person with the most to lose may be Pawlenty.
The governor has higher standing with the state’s voters at this point than either Coleman or Franken. Approval ratings for both Senate candidates hovered below 40 percent at last count, in January. Pawlenty, meanwhile, enjoyed a more than 50 percent approval in the state until recently.
A SurveyUSA poll released Feb. 26, however, showed that number had fallen a bit, to 48 percent.
Minnesotans have been remarkably patient thus far, but political analysts say there is growing distaste for the whole process.
“The same language is starting to emerge,” said David Schultz, a political law expert at Hamline University in St. Paul. “This has gone on too long. We are starting to look ridiculous. We need a second senator.’ ”
As for Minnesotans’ attitude toward their Senate candidates, “It’s a pox on both of them,” Janecek said.
For example, a blog post March 22 by popular Minneapolis news anchor Esme Murphy asking whether Coleman should appeal or concede if he loses his pending contest has attracted 141 comments, many along the lines of this one: “As a taxpayer, I don’t want to have to pay for anymore of this stupidity on either side. Call it a day and put Franken in there. He won’t be around in six years anyway.”
Schultz predicted that Coleman would face “enormous pressures” not to appeal should he lose, given that he already lost the recount phase.
But political approval may not matter too much to the former senator at this point.
It’s “win or oblivion,” for both candidates, Schultz said. “I think Coleman understands that ... He’s going to go for broke.”
Pawlenty, however, does have a political future to attend to, whether it involves running for a third term as governor in 2010 or positioning himself for a presidential run in 2012.
So far, he has been treading lightly.
Blois Olson, a Democratic-leaning political strategist, said Pawlenty is equally mindful that keeping the seat open indefinitely while Coleman pursues federal appeals could hurt him, too.
“He realizes that he’d be beginning to burn his own political capital if he kept it open,” Olson said.
Pawlenty may reach a point where he must decide between burning that capital or trying to state law as political cover.
“One possible opt-out is to say, ‘I had to do this because state law requires it,’ ” Schultz said, and that would likely satisfy “most everybody except the hardcore Republican party.”
Kathleen Hunter and Josh Rogin contributed to this story.
Comments
Enouh is enough. Coleman, all along, has tried to eliminate votes. Now he is trying to counf these same votes. A recount has happened, a very close race has been decided. Put politics to rest and seat a Senator from MN in Congress.
Congratulations on being, as far as I've seen, the first coverage since last election day to point to the real story in this contested election: that neither candidate has any real support in Minnesota. The election numbers make the point even more strongly: Coleman and Franken got only 42% each of the votes cast for Senate. 15% went to the Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley. The Independence Party is a real, if struggling, third party in Minnesota--in an upset in 1998, the Independence Party gubernatorial candidate, Jesse Ventura, won the election, outpolling the Republican and Democratic candidates. The Republican candidate was Norm Coleman. And this point is backed up by public opinion on the ground in Minnesota, especially as expressed in the runup to the election. Given the sheep-like tendency to vote only for the major parties--less prevalent in Minnesota than elsewhere, but still prevalent--it is safe to say that many of the votes cast for Coleman or Franken were actually votes against the other, and many of the votes cast for Barkley were votes against both. (This is reinforced by public comments during the campaign.) It is thus safe to say that both Coleman and Franken are thoroughly despised by the majority of Minnesotans. The reasons for this are obvious enough. Franken is what he is--a professional buffoon who has no connection with Minnesota beyond the fact that he was born here, in one of Minnesota's least representative neighborhoods. Coleman is a former Democrat who switched parties because he thought he could better represent Israel as a Republican. Both are widely regarded as incompetent carpetbaggers--the Hilary Clintons of MInnesota. But Minnesotans--though a very, very tolerant people--are less tolerant of Hilary Clintons than are the gullible and venal voters of my home state, New York (the people who sent Alphonse D'Amato to the Senate, twice). I believe the primary feeling among Minnesotans about this election is resentment they they were forced by the parties to make a choice between two such candidates--and perhaps chagrin that they didn't reject both of them, as they did in 1998. Minnesotans, since the election, have been polled with such questions as which of the two candidates they supported now (only two--Barkley was left out), and whether they think the election should be re-run. What they haven't been asked about (to my knowledge) is what they really want--a new election with new candidates. I doubt I'm alone in thinking that it would be better, for Minnesota and the nation, to have the seat left vacant than to have it handed by the courts to either Franken or Coleman. It's going to be an unpleasant six years--and with no assurance that either party will offer a better choice next time.
They should just have a do over in 2010. Pawlenty should appoint Coleman in the interim. He won the orignial election -- the "recount" had too many problems.
The entire situation is ludicrous....is there no way for the sane folks of Minnesota to end Norm Coleman's lost cause? I would think there should be sometype of end point to this mess. Aren't the people of Minnesota getting tired of not having their full represntation in the Senate. Obviously Norm and the Gop would rather see the country fail. emtirely...than take the consequences of his "loss" and withdraw to fight another day...
1. Alphonse D'Amato was 1) sent to the Senate 3 times; or 2) sent back to the Senate 2 times. 2. Well, if the bulk of people genuinely "despised" both Coleman and Franken, why did they not vote for ex-interim-Senator Barkley; it seems that the people as a whole have no one to blame but themselves! 3. If Pawlenty chose to appoint Coleman to the "vacant" seat he would be facing the prospect of impeachment, recall, or both (every state has at least one, and a handful offer both as removal options); were he to appoint Barkley or anyone else not connected with the (R) party or the election he would be forfeiting any chance of making it to the presidential ticket - in '12 or even beyond.
Look at it this way, either way it breaks, Minnesota gets Bozo the Clown for a Senator.
This whole matter is nothing more than a stalling technique being utilized by Coleman and Senate Republicans to prevent one more duly elected Democrat from being seated in the Senate. It is a numbers game and Franken represents the magic number 60 for Democrats which, if they can stay united--a feat similar to herding cats, represents a filibuster proof majority. The Democrats need to turn the heat up on Pawlenty who fancies himself a Presidential candidate in 2012. He's playing party politics to the detriment of his state.
Why do so many articles and blogs about this recount and court case try to claim that both of the candidates are acting in the same manner. This blog states "Neither candidate, however, is inclined to let those judges have the final word. " This is stated at the beginning in the 3rd paragraph. Still there is absolutely no evidence nor any statements provided that Franken would not accept the judges' decision. That is because Franken and his lawyers have indicated that they would accept their decision. Why did Coleman's lawyers have to waste 5 weeks bringing testiimony and Franken's only 5 days? It is obvious that what is at play here is the Republicans desire to keep a Democrat out of office while important votes are being taken in Washington. The court has already awarded more votes to Franken during the trial while Coleman has been fined $7000 for coaching and working in collusion with one of his witnesses and not sharing with Franken the email trail showing his communication with that witness ahead of time as prescribed by the court. Finally, using Franken's prior profession writing for Saturday Night Live and appearing in some skits on it as a reason why he would not make a good senator is laughable (pun intended). Is Schwarzenegger unfit to be the governor of California and was Reagan unfit to be governor of the same state just because of their previous professions? Such comments and calling them both Bozos reflects not upon either Franken or Coleman but rather upon the strange mentality and utter superficiality of those making such comments.
Apparently, the same dim bulbs who post on Minnesota blogs post here as well. And as ridiculous as it sounds, it seems to work. Too many reporters and bloggers (who shall remain nameless) hang on every word spoken by Ben Ginsburg (who did himself and the nation REAL proud during Bush v. Gore.) So as long as they keep spouting talking points, those words will be propagated by fine newspeople. What more can the Republican hacks ask for?
Can Leonard really be a lawyer? Does Leonard purposefully ignore the law when he practices? His clients must love the results. Well said "Be obj." I don't understand how people have time to write on these comment sections, but don't have time to actually look into the matter discussed and back their comments up with facts. It is refreshing when posters do just that, as "Be obj" has. All BS, no substance from too many Americans = ignorance and the downfall of America.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: