Listen to the Minnesota Supreme Court hearing live on MPR and add your comments below.
After more than two years of campaigning, running, and recounting, Norm Coleman and Al Franken this morning find themselves before the Minnesota Supreme Court arguing their respective sides. How close do you think we are to a resolution?
This is an open discussion, so you're welcome to link to your related Gather articles or other online resources. Your comments & articles may be quoted on http://minnesota.publicradio.org/your_voice/ or on mpr.org
______________
Eliza Hartley
Digital Media Intern
Minnesota Public Radio
American Public Media
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 18
Thanks for kicking off the discussion, Eliza... I'm listening now.
So far, there's been a lot of questioning regarding legally cast votes:
Elias: The question was raised with the District Court and it found that the court had juristiction who had determination to receive the most lawful votes even as the Senate has juristiction to decide who is seated.
Gildea: How can we tell who got the most legally cast votes?
Elias: Every ballot tells a story. That was a phrase that resonated through this courtroom day after day. You can't do as Coleman tried to, to take broad brushes and say "here are categories of ballots."
Also lots of questions regarding due process and equal protection. Many citations of Bush v. Gore. That is, if anyone can get more than a few sentences out before being interrupted. Tune in on MPR, or listen to a live stream at mpr.org.
Online opinions are pretty rough on this one:
"@justinph (via Twitter): Caught some #mncontest arguments on way in this morning. Did not sound good for Coleman. Sounded like his lawyers kind of suck, actually."
quote via Twitter,
Coleman might go away for good ??? Wow - cool !!!
Comment from the live-blog,
You're free to join in or watch the replay.
Thanks, Peter. We quoted you on the News Cut live blog simultaneous with the hearings. Here's the link: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/ it's a bit down the page.
Another comment, rather rough, from the live blog:
[Comment From Ben Vos, Nashville]
Shorter Friedberg: We don't need no stiinkin evidence. We should be able to make assumptions and then change the rules after the game has been played.
I should clarify that this was a paraphrase of this quote:
Friedberg answers [Chief Justice Alan] Page on whether his arguments today are consistent with some of the things he told the Canvassing Board. He acknowledges their not.
Another comment from the live-blog [Comment From Jen] If we are supposed to accept voters' "good faith attempts" to cast their ballots, to what degree do we accept the good faith attempts of election officials to run the same election? Obviously there will always be some degree of human error, so what amount is considered acceptable in an election?
And now... the analysis.
Lots of questions regarding inconsistencies...if you had to have a perfect election, election system would implode, according to Raleigh Levine, Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law. What should the standards be for elections? Is there a possibility to be completely objective in elections? What are your thoughts?
From the live-blog, MPR's Bob Collins writes,
What you have ther eis the $64,000 question and I think the answer depends on whether the governor intends to run for re-election in 2010, or the White House in 2012.
Bob is closing the live-blog, but I'm hoping to read some perspective & commentary here.
I had thought that this had already been decided and that Franken was the winner.
It appeared that way after the recount trial, but Coleman appealed to the MN Supreme Court. See a timeline of the race here.
What makes me mad is the LIES the Coleman team spun.
THey said a box full of ballots were left outside in an unlocked car.
When Coleman thought he was frontrunner he argued to quit dragging the process out, be a man and accept defeat. Now he changes his tune.
What is at stake is MORE than a Senate seat, unlike MOST Dems Franken is a fighter. He will fight Republicon lies (he already has with his book lying liars)He is a formidable opponent.
The Repubs are scared.
A snowball has a better chance than Coleman.
The overwhelming opinion, here and on the live-blog, seems to be that the answer to my initial question is negative. Why do you think Coleman continues to fight in that case? Check out this story by MPR's Mark Zdechlik.