# How's Al Franken's Senate bid going? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2008, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239 "2008-02-12T01:57:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/621 "2009-02-17T01:48:49Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > It is not about right and wrong. Sure it is, and the GOP’s effective disenfranchisement of the people of Minnesota is _wrong_. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/622 "2009-02-17T03:57:14Z")
Well, they’re in for it. If they keep on messin’, Minnesotans will clear their throats a disapproving manner. Glowering is not entirely out of the question. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/623 "2009-02-17T04:25:43Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Sure it is, and the GOP’s effective disenfranchisement of the people of Minnesota is _wrong_. But, it’s not _about_ right or wrong. The GOP isn’t trying to disenfranchise Minnesotans _because_ it’s the wrong thing to do. They’re just doing it because it hurts the Dems. The issues of right and wrong are completely incidental, and, of course, of no concern for Coleman’s supporters. Although, now that I think about it, a concerted effort to be morally wrong might just explain a lot about the GOP over the last several years. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/624 "2009-02-17T17:13:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Republican Senatorial Committee holds D.C. fundraiser for Coleman’s legal fees.](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18832.html) > > Even they can’t possibly believe he’s going to prevail; they’re just trying to keep the seat vacant as long as possible. Ah yes, the fabled “Let’s ask for money for a hopeless cause in troubled economic times”. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/625 "2009-02-17T18:07:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Even they can’t possibly believe he’s going to prevail; It’s not far out. He’s already gotten the court to allow over 3000 more absentee ballots to be reconsidered. Mark Elias claims that maybe 1000 of those will actually be counted. I’ll take the middle ground, and say maybe 1000-1500 will actually be counted. The bulk of those ballots are from areas where Coleman had significant support. [Coleman ballot list heavy on GOP turf – Twin Cities](http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_11660291?nclick_check=1) He’s also pretty well established an inconsistancy in standards. Several of the 20 or so ballots that the court awarded to Franken would have been rejected under the standards that narrowed the 4800 down to 3000. In any case, it seems however the election contest ends, there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court [http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/39664797.html?page=1&c=y](http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/39664797.html?page=1&c=y) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/626 "2009-02-17T19:15:23Z")
Only about 500 to 1000 of those ballots will likely be counted. The way both camps are reacting to friday’s decision basically telegraphs that the decision favored Franken and that whatever gets counted won’t give Coleman a lead. There has been no demonstration of any difference in standards – methodology maybe, but not standards in terms of accuracy, and certainly no showing of sloppiness or fraud. Coleman’s lawyers have long backed off those kinds of accusations. Coleman is now asking the judges to reconsider friday’s ruling based on some kind of claim that the ballots disallowed on friday were “similar” to other ballots which had been previously allowed. I don’t know the details of why the ballots on friday were disallowed or what Colemans’ camping is claiming the “similariy” is, but the legal commentatotors following the case are all saying this appeal to reconsider is a long shot for Coleman, so I doubt it has much teeth to it. Franken’s team thinks Coleman is trying to set up an Equal Protection theory to take to the Minnesota Supreme Court once they lose this trial. That appeal is not expected to be successful either. Coleman has already taken a new day job and the whispering in the state (I know some people that know some people) is that Coleman himself does not really believe he’s going to win. Right now, this is about (as **Brainglutton** said) keeping the seat open as long as possible and being a good soldier long enough to stay in good with the GOP and maximize his earning potential in the private sector. Sometime around late spring or early summer, Senator Franken will take his seat, and Bill O’Reilly can start eating his own liver out. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/627 "2009-02-17T20:49:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > … Bill O’Reilly can start eating his own liver out. Now, Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist… ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/628 "2009-02-17T20:53:35Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > It’s not far out. He’s already gotten the court to allow over 3000 more absentee ballots to be reconsidered. Mark Elias claims that maybe 1000 of those will actually be counted. I’ll take the middle ground, and say maybe 1000-1500 will actually be counted. No, I think Franken’s lawyer is closer – less than 1000 votes. Remember that these ballots have already been rejected 3 times: once by the poll workers on election day, once by the county clerk’s office the next day or so, and once during the review of absentee ballots ordered by the Supreme Court. And all 3 times, there were representatives of both political parties present and participating – that last time, the campaigns themselves could exclude ballots. So the chance that these ballots would suddenly be accepted on the 4th review is unlikely. So far, I think the Court has only allowed 49 additional ballots to be counted (and those were mostly Franken ones). This Court has been pretty stingy about including additional ballots. Finally, as Diogenes said, the reaction of the parties shows that they both feel this is a loss for Coleman. And they should know; both parties know what’s inside these still-sealed absentee ballots – they have had the names of the voters for weeks, and have looked them up or contacted them to find out who they voted for. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/629 "2009-02-17T21:06:42Z")
Surely there’s some sort of mechanism in place to cut short all of this stalling? Could the Senate, in its capacity to “judge the elections and returns of its members”, declare that the return is that Franken won? Could some other body step in and say “Cut it out, Norm”? Obviously there has to be something to stop this sort of obstructionism, or every loser in every race would stop the winner from taking the seat. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/630 "2009-02-17T21:13:31Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Surely there’s some sort of mechanism in place to cut short all of this stalling? Could the Senate, in its capacity to “judge the elections and returns of its members”, declare that the return is that Franken won? Could some other body step in and say “Cut it out, Norm”? Obviously there has to be something to stop this sort of obstructionism, or every loser in every race would stop the winner from taking the seat. Franken has a petition for a provisional certificate of election sitting in front of the MN Supreme Court, but they haven’t addressed it yet (12 days and counting). Minnesota has no law in place for this contingency (by which I mean the situation of providing a provisional cert of election…the standard remedy is to wait for the Election Court to do their thing), which may be why the MN Supremes are stalling, not wanting to “make law”. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/631 "2009-02-17T21:24:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Surely there’s some sort of mechanism in place to cut short all of this stalling? Could the Senate, in its capacity to “judge the elections and returns of its members”, declare that the return is that Franken won? Could some other body step in and say “Cut it out, Norm”? Obviously there has to be something to stop this sort of obstructionism, or every loser in every race would stop the winner from taking the seat. The US Senate has sort of set a precedent, in their reaction to the Illinois - Burris one: they said that if the state issues a certificate of election, they will seat the person. So to now seat Franken without one would look rather partisan. And the problem in Minnesota is that the certificate has to be signed by our republican governor, Tim Pawlenty, who is busy trying to curry favor with national republicans for his bid for President in 2012. Once this 3-judge Court panel rules in favor of Franken, the Governor & Secretary of State ought to sign the Certificate of Election. But Coleman is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Governor is likely to use that as an excuse to further delay issuing the Certificate of Election. Though once this court panel rules, there might be enough public pressure from Minnesota citizens who want their 2 Senators to force him to sign it. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/632 "2009-02-17T21:32:27Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Franken has a petition for a provisional certificate of election sitting in front of the MN Supreme Court, but they haven’t addressed it yet (12 days and counting). Minnesota has no law in place for this contingency (by which I mean the situation of providing a provisional cert of election…the standard remedy is to wait for the Election Court to do their thing), which may be why the MN Supremes are stalling, not wanting to “make law”. It maybe settled another way – there is a bill going through the Mn Legislature that requires the Governor & Sec’y of State to issue a provisional Election Certificate in cases like this. That bill takes effect the day after it is passed. So if this is still pending at that time, this law would require them to issues a Provisional Certificate to Franken, and the Senate would then seat him. But our Governor is likely to veto this bill, and it’s not clear if the Mn House can get 2 republican votes to override his veto. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/633 "2009-02-17T21:37:20Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > And the problem in Minnesota is that the certificate has to be signed by our republican governor, Yep. And Mark Ritchie, the \*\*Democratic \*\*Secretary of State also refused to sign it. _ **Because that’s what state law mandates** _. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/634 "2009-02-17T21:47:38Z")
Not a problem. Merely a temporary, if annoying, inconvenience. Really, if all the Pubbies have by this time next year is “Senator Franken has every ‘t’ dotted and every ‘i’ crossed to a fare-thee-well,” I guess it’s just the kind of disadvantage we’ll have to overcome. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/635 "2009-02-17T21:52:59Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Not a problem. Merely a temporary, if annoying, inconvenience. Last Saturday, I joked with Franken that he was really only going to end up serving a 4-year term, instead of 6 years. But that brings up a question: is either Franken or Coleman getting a paycheck from the US Senate right now? Probably not. But when one of them is actually seated in the Senate, will they get back pay to the start of this Congress (Jan 3rd)? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/636 "2009-02-17T22:05:13Z")
I think the only one who even might have had a chance of getting any paychecks yet for this session would be Norm, and He definitely isn’t getting anything. That’s why he had to get a job. He had to clear out his office back in January. He is officially no longer a US Senator unless and until he somehow manages to steal this thing from Franken. The question of whether the ultimate winner will get back pay is intersting, though. I suspect that they would have to. It’s an annual salary. I don’t think there are any provisions about pro-rating it. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/637 "2009-02-18T13:46:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s an annual salary. I don’t think there are any provisions about pro-rating it. There must be. This isn’t the first time a partial term would be served, as Mr Barkley could attest. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/638 "2009-02-18T19:54:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I suspect that they would have to. It’s an annual salary. I don’t think there are any provisions about pro-rating it. I’m not sure – many salaries are annual, but paid out every 2 weeks. And you’re only paid if you were there for the 2 weeks – if you start work in February, you don’t get back pay to the start of the year. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/639 "2009-02-28T02:27:56Z")
Well, the trial was rumored to be in its [last throes](http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/), but it [didn’t end today](http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/02/recount_trial_e.php). Michael Steele, head of the RNC, still has [room for optimism:](http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=1eabdd88-0b99-4c6f-8746-96ce28de3ae3) > [@](#): > > Once the recount is completed, I fully expect Senator Coleman to be where he was on election night: in the lead. When that happens, we will welcome back a senator who values fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and will not vote to saddle future generations with unprecedented debt. I join my fellow Republicans in standing firmly behind Norm Coleman and his pursuit to ensure no Minnesota voter is disenfranchised.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/640 "2009-02-28T04:34:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Once the recount is completed, I fully expect Senator Coleman to be where he was on election night: in the lead. That’s a neat trick, given that the recount was completed nearly two months ago. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239.md?page=33)