It hinged on the following statue, which seems pretty clear:
But they argued that there isn’t a court of proper jurisdiction that can finally determine the contest, because the senate itself has ultimate authority. Therefore the statute doesn’t apply to Senate elections. It didn’t fly, but it’s an interesting argument.
The three-judge panel has had the case for more than two weeks now. Any rumors on when a ruling is expected?
The general speculation is that they’re trying to wrap their opinion up tight so that it’s unlikely to be overturned on appeal. And you know that Coleman will take this right to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
GOP: No prob if Minnesota Senate seat vacant for ‘years’
More here:
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/03/30/1004094/world-war-iii-over-a-senate-seat
If only Gore would have done the same thing.
Interesting that they’re willing to lose Minnesota for a very long time just for the opportunity to tie up the Senate for a couple of months. It’s not like Minnesota only sends Democrats to Congress…Michele Bachmann, Coleman, good old Rudy Boschwitz. The MInnewegians might be reliable presidential Democratic voters, but they do tend to mix it up when it comes to Capitol Hill. Word is that there are already an awful lot of Minnesota voters giving Norm the fish-eye over this stalling tactic, even Republican voters, and Cornyn (not known for his ability to keep his size 12s out of his piehole on a good day) isn’t helping matters.
We mix it up because while the Twin Cities are extremely Democratic and Liberal, some suburbs and rural areas have a Republican bent.
Never mind why, HOW?
We are also fairly independent - i.e. there are a lot of Minnesotans who will vote for whomever is the best candidate. As well as a lot of voters who will vote for guys like Ventura and Barkley who aren’t ‘establishment.’
Like much of the country, its important in much of Minnesota to appeal to the middle - particularly in statewide elections. You might win South Minneapolis as a brain dead Democrat or St. Cloud as a brain dead Republican, but many people can still see purple around here.
Despite Cornyn’s bluster, the local lawyer talk around here is that Coleman will probably give it up after the MN Supreme Court appeal. Rumors are that he doesn’t have the money to press a federal appeal. Cornyn’s assertion that an appeal “could take years” is complete hot air. The process would be expedited extremely quickly if Coleman chose that route, but, unlike the state Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court does not have to hear it and probably won’t.
Didn’t Bush v. Gore have a provisio at the end which basically said, “We are only deciding the case before us. Don’t use this decision as precedent for another case.”?
If so, how could Coleman win on this one? MN needs a better law for this type of situation. One that fast tracks the court cases and sets a firm, dead-end date before the seat is to be filled.
So we have a senator from one state saying that another state should be denied part of its representation in congress? Isn’t that unconstitutional?
Yes, and I feel Minnesota should declare war on Texas over the issue. 
Purple and Gold.
I would love to see MN become a run-off state after this (as in, when you vote for a candidate, you also indicate your second choice).
In the largest city in Minnesota, Minneapolis (about 10% of the state), that will be happening in the City elections this November.
The voters of Minneapolis approved use of Ranked Voting in a referendum previously, and it will take effect this year. (But the machines aren’t and can’t be set to count this way, so much of it will have to be done as hand-counting. Which is making some people nervous, after the issues with the recount.)
There is a petition in St. Paul to do the same thing in the elections there. And a desire by many to do this in all state elections, too. (But that will be strongly opposed by republicans. Currently, third party candidates act as ‘spoilers’, allowing republicans to win elections with a minority vote. Like every gubernatorial election Pawlenty has ‘won’. Ranked choice voting would eliminate this effect, allowing people to vote for whatever party they choose, and have their 2nd or 3rd choice still help decide the election.)
Ranked voting. That was the term I was looking for.
I’m very pleased that my city will be using it – my hope is that it will take off and be implemented state-wide. If nothing else, this fucked-up election should help get that ball rolling.
Yes, but it’s not that simple: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=gore%20precedent&st=cse
And see this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/us/23bar.html?scp=5&sq=gore%20precedent&st=cse
That’s called “Instant runoff”. Georgia is a runoff state and they held their second election just a couple weeks after the first. But it seems like an excellent suggestion, to be sure. But imagine how hard it would be to program for the machines they already can’t get right.
We already had a war with them – and they lost! And we had only been a state for a couple of years at the time.