Al Franken, Norm Coleman meet again

May 29, 3:17 PMSouth St. Paul ExaminerRob Shirk

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the South St. Paul Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Blind Justice

The Minnesota Supreme Court will not decide who won the election for U.S. Senate. That has already been determined. The court will decide on whether to uphold the lower court's decision that Landslide Al Franken beat Landslide Norm Coleman by 312 votes

When Landslide Norm Coleman filed an appeal against the district court and Landslide Al Franken it was with the view that that the lower court failed in its judgment by not counting around 4,000 rejected absentee ballots. He will also contend that due to the differing application of Minnesota law at the individual voting centers constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the constitution.

The Minnesota high court could send the case back to the lower court's three judge panel and have them count the rejected ballots, call off the election entirely, or uphold the lower court's decision. Landslide Al Franken won the election by 312 votes pending the decision. There will be no new evidence entered.

There is nothing new here. The ballots in question have been found to be non-compliant with Minnesota law requirements twice already. What is being asked is for the court to rewrite the law to allow these ballots to be counted and throw the entire body of evidence into the sea. The ballots have been proven to be non-compliant after painstaking review.

The court is being asked by Landslide Norm Coleman to disobey the constitutional separation of powers where the judicial branch can write their own laws on any whim they desire, regardless of laws established by the legislature. They are being asked to break the law.

The varience in voting centers has not been found nor has any evidence been produced that reveal that any one particular group of voters were treated unfairly. Without this in hand it is hard to figure out whose rights were treated unequally or unfairly.

Nevertheless, Landslide Norm Coleman will attempt to prove an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause. As of today, there has been nothing introduced by the plaintiff to indicate or identify anyone.

Of course, the court could decide to nullify the election and order another one. This would require the Minnesota legislature to meet and come up with a law for a runoff election. There is no law currently in place for a "do-over". If they were to go down that road, however, the same result, however infinitesimal it may be, could occur.

The cases will be heard on Monday. When a decision comes down is anyone's guess.