# 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:** 43
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/841 "2009-04-18T23:12:38Z")
From the WSJ: > [@](#): > > The mess then landed with the three-judge panel overseeing Mr. Coleman’s contest trial, a panel that seemed out of its depth. Unable to declare a partisan bias to it, the WSJ now says that the judges must be incompetant. Nice. > [@](#): > > Another solution is to hold a special Senate election. Minnesota law does not specifically provide for such a runoff. However, the U.S. Constitution’s 17th amendment does provide states with a roadmap for filling “vacancies,” which might be a legal starting point for a do-over. If my guy was obviously going to lose, I’d be calling for a do-over as well. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/842 "2009-04-18T23:29:59Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > I believe that the Election Contest Hearing, held before the 3 Judges appointed by the Supreme Court, is considered already at an appellate level, so an appeal from it comes directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court. No, the hearing involves findings of fact, if I’m not mistaken, so that’s never an appeal. There are situations where direct appeal to the ultimate authority is a good idea. In some such cases, the state’s constitution or statutes may be set up to accommodate that. Thankfully. ---
**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:** [April 18, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/843 "2009-04-18T23:42:51Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > No, the hearing involves findings of fact, if I’m not mistaken, so that’s never an appeal. I agree that it’s not an appeal. But the Election Contest Hearing is _at an appellate level_, similar to a case from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Any appeal from this goes directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court (Statutes 209.10 sub 4). In fact, that statute even says that such an appeal “takes precedence over all other matters before the Supreme Court”. So it goes right to the top of their calendar, and they are likely to move real fast to deal with this. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/844 "2009-04-18T23:49:30Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Here’s an interesting article > > [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000875842430603.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000875842430603.html) If by “article” you mean “editorial slanted so far to the right that it disturbs the planet’s rotation”, sure. ---
**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:** [April 18, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/845 "2009-04-18T23:53:26Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > So it goes right to the top of their calendar, and they are likely to move real fast to deal with this. That presupposes that Norm is going to move real fast to get it filed. I’m betting he takes the entire 10 days. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/846 "2009-04-19T00:05:11Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I’m betting he takes the entire 10 days. Well, monday evening through saturday evening is 5 days, so he’s halfway there. We should know for sure by next thursday evening. ---
**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:** [April 19, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/847 "2009-04-19T00:49:40Z")
One of Coleman’s lawyers said on a local radio station today that “if I have anything to say about it,” the process will take years. He was all but admitting that the goal is simply to obstruct the seat as long as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/848 "2009-04-19T01:11:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He was all but admitting that the goal is simply to obstruct the seat as long as possible. Sounds like it’s time for Minnesotans to hire a good class action lawyer. ---
**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:** [April 19, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/849 "2009-04-19T01:14:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > One of Coleman’s lawyers said on a local radio station today that “if I have anything to say about it,” the process will take years. Well, sure – remember that he is being paid for all those ‘years’. ---
**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:** [April 19, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/850 "2009-04-19T01:26:53Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Quite possibly. It certainly shows that the authors have not bothered to even read the lengthy & quite detailed ruling by the Contest Judges. > > They say “the state was awash with evidence of duplicate ballot counting, newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, illegal voting, and wildly diverse standards as to which votes were counted.” So it’s odd that Coleman’s lawyers weren’t able to find any of this evidence to present in Court, or even to give any specific examples of any of this. (Not just my opinion, but the Court ruling.) > > But then, the previous WSJ editorial on this went on at length about “ballots left overnight in a election workers’ car”, which was just a complete fabrication made up by a Republican blogger. Seems like the Wall Street Journal gets its’ information by reading blogs on the Internet, and reprints it without bothering to do any fact-checking. Is it any wonder that newspapers are going out of business? The car trunk story was originally made up by Coleman laywer [Fritz Knack](http://www.minnpost.com/davidbrauer/2008/11/12/4565/minneapolis_election_director_speaks_ballots_in_my_car_story_false), who never backed it up and eventually backed off it after it was debunked, but the WSJ went one step further and fabricated an utterly bogus assertion that Cindy Reichart had issued an “announcement…that she’d forgotten to count 32 absentee ballots in her car.” Tim Pawlenty repeated the lie as well, and so did Fox News. As far as I know, neither Pawlenty nor Fox News nor the WSJ have ever issued any retractions. Fox News also falsely reported that all of the 32 votes had gone to Franken when the count was really 18-7-7. As for the WSJ article above, like all of its coverage of this story, it sounds like they’re basically just printing everything verbatim that they get from Coleman’s lawyers. The “double-counted ballots” allegation is just as bogus as the car trunk, as anyone would know who’d ever read the court decision. The Wall Street Journal is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, and it shows. ---
**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:** [April 19, 2009, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/851 "2009-04-19T01:38:14Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Well, sure – remember that he is being paid for all those ‘years’. The funny thing about it is that he more or less admits that too. The lawyer I’m talking about is Coleman’s current lead attorney, Joe Friedberg, who is pretty much a political liberal, and who has publicly admitted that he didn’t vote for Coleman, but that a client is a client, and he’s going to do the work and take the checks. I can’t swear that he wasn’t being tongue in cheek. It would be just like him. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/852 "2009-04-20T23:53:40Z")
[COLEMAN APPEALS TO STATE SUPREME COURT](http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/20/1900647.aspx) > [@](#): > > Monday, April 20, 2009 6:21 PM > In the latest move in the never-ending Minnesota Senate race, Norm Coleman’s legal team today announced it would be filing a notice of appeal with the Minnesota Supreme Court. Coleman lawyer Jim Langdon said it could take anywhere from “two weeks to two months” for the court to begin hearing oral arguments. Langdon and fellow Coleman attorney Ben Ginsberg wouldn’t say whether they would take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if the Minnesota court ruled against Coleman. [Norm Coleman has kept his word and filed a notice of petition to appeal his election-contest loss today to the Minnesota Supreme Court](http://minnesotaindependent.com/32829/coleman-appeals-supreme-court) ([pdf’s](http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409)) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/853 "2009-04-21T02:02:24Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [COLEMAN APPEALS TO STATE SUPREME COURT](http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/20/1900647.aspx)[Norm Coleman has kept his word and filed a notice of petition to appeal his election-contest loss today to the Minnesota Supreme Court](http://minnesotaindependent.com/32829/coleman-appeals-supreme-court) ([pdf’s](http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409)) Does the Minnesota Supreme Court have the discretion to decline the case? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/854 "2009-04-21T02:26:00Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > I agree that it’s not an appeal. But the Election Contest Hearing is _at an appellate level_, similar to a case from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Any appeal from this goes directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court (Statutes 209.10 sub 4). In fact, that statute even says that such an appeal “takes precedence over all other matters before the Supreme Court”. So it goes right to the top of their calendar, and they are likely to move real fast to deal with this. While it is true that it goes right up, what is your basis for saying that it is “at an appellate level similar to a case from [sic] the Minnesota Court of Appeals?” An appeal is a case that has had findings of fact, and then those findings, along with any legal arguments, are taken to a higher authority for review. If there was no prior finding of fact, then the case is not appellate in any way. Now, if the members of the judicial body that heard the Election Contest are all appellate judges, then I understand what you are saying. ETA: @ **BrainGlutton** : Probably not. Since this is the only appeal available, due process would require that the Court hear the appeal. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2009, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/855 "2009-04-21T02:59:06Z")
Note that Norm hasn’t appealed yet; he’s just announced that he will be appealing. It’s still eight days yet before he actually does appeal. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/856 "2009-04-21T03:32:02Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Note that Norm hasn’t appealed yet; he’s just announced that he will be appealing. It’s still eight days yet before he actually does appeal. The second link says he’s already filed. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/857 "2009-04-21T03:33:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Does the Minnesota Supreme Court have the discretion to decline the case? From what I’ve heard, they’re required to review it, but on the plus side, they don’t have to hear oral arguments. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/858 "2009-04-21T03:54:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > From what I’ve heard, they’re required to review it, but on the plus side, they don’t have to hear oral arguments. They will schedule them, mark my words. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/859 "2009-04-21T04:26:24Z")
Used to be, we had hardly any lawyers on the Board, now we got…what?..eight, maybe ten? No good can come of this. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239/860 "2009-04-21T04:29:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Note that Norm hasn’t appealed yet; he’s just announced that he will be appealing. It’s still eight days yet before he actually does appeal. Is there any way that Franken can appeal his own self right away, just to limit Norm’s ability to run the clock? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239.md?page=42) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-al-frankens-senate-bid-going/437239.md?page=44)