Congressional Elections Results Thread

[Cknolls]

I think the majority are viewing it as Obama and the Democrats doing something to fix this crisis and the Republicans doing nothing but saying "the financial geniuses that got us into this mess will get us out" while proposing joke budgets and massive tax cuts with no coherent planning.

 

 

The joke budget is this current President believing the economy is going to grow at over a 4% clip next year. What is he smoking?

[kapkomet]

The sentiment that StrangeSox was getting at is absolutely true. The GOP is in shambles right now, they have no leader. They are ragtagging and RESPONDING to bulls*** instead of being proactive. They are irrelevant until they lead. If they keep responding instead of leading, no one will ever get anywhere.

 

I think real conservatives understand that things needed/need to be done here to get things moving again. I don't think any right minded individual (no pun intended) disagrees with that. However, we are getting the foot stuck on the accelerator in the wrong direction here and it's going to kill our country. There is going too far with all of this, and in my opinion Obama is doing just that. The GOP needs to get off their ass and actually stand for something. GWB's asshatery led us to Obama (that should be his legacy, IMO, because it led to what is a massive buildup of government structure).

 

I don't disagree with the voter sentiment that led to Obama, and the GOP better wake the hell up before it's too late (in many cases, it's getting that way real quick).

 

 

[Cknolls]

http://www.politickerny.com/2871/now-tedisco-hair

 

http://www.politickerny.com/2869/republica...also-need-money

 

 

 

This could take awhile.

[Cknolls]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1283

 

But there is a long way to go before the election.

[Balta1701]

One of Norm Coleman's last hope lawsuits was to try to get a large number of rejected ballots counted, simply because there's some finite chance that they could selectively help him. After some whittling down, 400 new ballots were accepted and counted today.

Backfire.

Democrat Al Franken today extended his lead over Republican Norm Coleman in Minnesota's U.S. Senate election, after the counting of about 350 formerly rejected absentee ballots this morning.

 

Franken captured 198 of the ballots, while Coleman took 111. The ballots added 87 votes to Franken’s recount lead, enlarging his margin over Coleman to 312.

[lostfan]

I wonder how much longer this will be allowed to play out once this latest appeal is done? I've seen some rumblings that this will be appealed and end up before the SCOTUS but they have no jurisdiction whatsoever over a clearly defined state issue, plus I tend to think that Reid would trump such an attempt anyway. In fact I sort of wonder what's been taking him so long.

[Balta1701]

In fact I sort of wonder what's been taking him so long.

A number of issues. First and foremost, the Republicans have the ability to filibuster any attempt to seat Senator Franken, so if he's going to push it, he better be on firm ground. Second, the Minnesota State Supreme Court has yet to rule, which would sort of give him some nearly iron clad defense of pushing it. Third, the Dems are trying to break about a dozen Republican Filibusters, and right now they simply put economic bills as a higher priority than seating Franken. And Reid sort of blew his own horn early by trying to not seat Senator Burris without all of the appropriate signatures from the state level, because in Minnesota, one of the signatures required is that of the governor, Tim Pawlenty, who just happens to be one of the folks you can expect to be on the Republican 2012 nomination list, and thus who has plenty of motivation to deny that signature until it's forced upon him by Federal Marshalls or something.

 

The Republicans have every reason to drag this out as long as they can to deny the Dems an extra Senator. You can argue whether or not they should be doing so, but tactically, the longer they drag this out, the better it is for them because it will take 2 Republican votes to break a filibuster instead of 1. I believe it was Senator Cornyn, head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee who said that it could take "Years" to resolve.

[lostfan]

A number of issues. First and foremost, the Republicans have the ability to filibuster any attempt to seat Senator Franken, so if he's going to push it, he better be on firm ground. Second, the Minnesota State Supreme Court has yet to rule, which would sort of give him some nearly iron clad defense of pushing it. Third, the Dems are trying to break about a dozen Republican Filibusters, and right now they simply put economic bills as a higher priority than seating Franken. And Reid sort of blew his own horn early by trying to not seat Senator Burris without all of the appropriate signatures from the state level, because in Minnesota, one of the signatures required is that of the governor, Tim Pawlenty, who just happens to be one of the folks you can expect to be on the Republican 2012 nomination list, and thus who has plenty of motivation to deny that signature until it's forced upon him by Federal Marshalls or something.

 

The Republicans have every reason to drag this out as long as they can to deny the Dems an extra Senator. You can argue whether or not they should be doing so, but tactically, the longer they drag this out, the better it is for them because it will take 2 Republican votes to break a filibuster instead of 1. I believe it was Senator Cornyn, head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee who said that it could take "Years" to resolve.

Yeah, I sort of glossed over that, and it looks like they're going to rule in favor of Franken, too. Which I guess would make Coleman's next logical choice to appeal to the feds if he wanted to keep dragging it out... now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Senate has the ability to tell the feds they have no jurisdiction (assuming the feds don't defer back to the MNSC, as they really should), correct? For the Republicans to try to filibuster something like that would directly conflict with everything they've ever said about states' rights.

Edited April 13, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Yeah, I sort of glossed over that, and it looks like they're going to rule in favor of Franken, too. Which I guess would make Coleman's next logical choice to appeal to the feds if he wanted to keep dragging it out... now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Senate has the ability to tell the feds they have no jurisdiction (assuming the feds don't defer back to the MNSC, as they really should), correct? For the Republicans to try to filibuster something like that would directly conflict with everything they've ever said about states' rights.

I would think that the only appeal would be to the US Supreme court. I can't possibly see where they would have grounds to take this to federal court... (I didn't read the article, so I don't know how they have the grounds to do that.)

[Balta1701]

I would think that the only appeal would be to the US Supreme court. I can't possibly see where they would have grounds to take this to federal court... (I didn't read the article, so I don't know how they have the grounds to do that.)

But you're missing the real beauty of this case...the law isn't exactly clear on whether or not the federal system will have adequate jurisdiction, so new law will have to be made defining who has jurisdiction in this case. Which means that the first challenge, taking up the next year, will be an appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court taking up the issue of whether or not they have jurisdiction to order the seating of the Senator. Then, once jurisdiction has been decided, another year will be taken up by having an appellate court followed by the Supreme Court actually decide on whether or not to order the Governor to provide his signature to endorse the results. While this isn't good for minnesota, the fact that the law is unclear gives the Republicans all that extra time where they can keep the Dems from having that extra Senator just by paying Coleman's legal fees so that he keeps up the fight.

[lostfan]

I would think that the only appeal would be to the US Supreme court. I can't possibly see where they would have grounds to take this to federal court... (I didn't read the article, so I don't know how they have the grounds to do that.)

Oh there was no article I was responding to, just my thoughts.

[Balta1701]

And the first official court decision...

Over five months after the election, a three-judge panel has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of the Minnesota U.S. Senate race.

 

The judges issued their final ruling late Monday, stating "Franken received the highest number of lawfully cast ballots in the Nov. 4, 2008 general election."

 

They also have determined that Franken is entitled to receive the certificate of election.

The Coleman campaign will now obviously appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, an appeal which must be filed within the next 10 days. Here is a detailed summary of where things will go, with this being the big bullet point:

The likeliest outcome -- no matter whether Team Coleman takes their case to the U.S. Supreme Court and/or tries to get a fresh start in federal district court -- is that Franken will be seated in the Senate in roughly May or June.

The MN Supreme Court can take 1 of 2 steps...they can either rule that the state of MN did as good of a job as they could and order the election certified, or they can judge that a mistake was made somewhere along the line and order additional counting. They can not summarily rule that Norm Coleman won the election from this point on...he would have to close the gap by some counting method. It is worth noting that at least 1 MN Supreme Court justice has been a Coleman donor in the past, so there's some complex issues there.

 

One interesting thing will be to see how far former Senator Coleman pushes his arguments. Let's hypothetically say that he gets all the way to the Supreme Court, argues that different counties enforced different standards for how they counted the votes (an argument which is likely correct at some level) and the Supreme Court in some fashion invalidates the election based on that. What the Court will just have done is affirm the controversial Bush V. Gore argument...that you can't have differing voting standards between districts. This of course would be a nightmare...especially for whichever party tends to benefit from things like having fewer voting machines and longer lines in districts populated by the poor, or where you have different standards or ID requirements for voting from state to state.

[lostfan]

Well MN's SC appointed that panel so if they ruled against it they'd be effectively ruling against themselves.

[Balta1701]

Well MN's SC appointed that panel so if they ruled against it they'd be effectively ruling against themselves.

This is actually fairly normal though...an Appellate court can't take up all of the issues that come before it, so they break in to various 3 member panels, and then the 3 member panel will make a decision on a case. After that decision it is appealed to the full court if one side feels it still has a case to make, and then the full court can decide or pass on accepting the new appeal. In this case, the full court is virtually certain to accept given the nature of the case.

[mr_genius]

haha

 

oh my

 

Franken could be seated in the senate, then removed by the supreme court? is this what i'm hearing?

 

[Balta1701]

Franken could be seated in the senate, then removed by the supreme court? is this what i'm hearing?

Actually, yes, that is one possible option. Highly, highly unlikely, but plausible. But frankly, it's an option I'd be willing to deal with, because the Supreme Court ruling that would be required for that to happen would basically dismantle the Republican Party.

[mr_genius]

Actually, yes, that is one possible option. Highly, highly unlikely, but plausible. But frankly, it's an option I'd be willing to deal with, because the Supreme Court ruling that would be required for that to happen would basically dismantle the Republican Party.

 

voting should be standard IMO. i am against long lines and such in any district. i also think ID should be shown to vote

[Balta1701]

Another fun detail...you can come up with reasons for 4 of the 7 Minnesota Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves in this case.

As it is, it already seems like two justices are solid bets to recuse themselves: Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and Associate Justice Barry Anderson, who served on the special state canvassing board, and previously recused themselves in state Supreme Court proceedings in this case, when the court addressed questions such as rejected absentee ballots and when a certificate of election could be granted.

 

But now we know that Justice Christopher Dietzen has donated money to Norm Coleman -- the checks were written over five years ago, before Dietzen first became a judge -- should he recuse himself? He's already participated in the other litigation listed above, and in all fairness he didn't seem to be biased.

 

And this one isn't quite so solid, but some people might wonder whether Associate Justice Alan Page should recuse himself, because he appointed the three-member trial court. (That job originally would have gone to the Chief Justice -- but he'd recused himself, leaving it to Page as the most senior associate justice.)

[Balta1701]

Republican Jim Tedisco concedes to Democrat Scott Murphy in the razor-thin election in the NY-20.

TPM

[HuskyCaucasian]

One Down....

Republican Jim Tedisco concedes to Democrat Scott Murphy in the razor-thin election in the NY-20.

 

...One to Go!

The Minnesota Supreme Court has just issued its order establishing a schedule for Norm Coleman's appeal of the Senate election result -- and even though this schedule has been expedited by the standards of normal civil litigation, it's going to be a while by political standards.

 

The court adopted the proposed briefing timeline from the Coleman campaign, allowing them more time to formulate their arguments: Coleman's brief is to be submitted by next Thursday, April 30; Team Franken will submit its brief by May 11, and a reply brief from Coleman is to be submitted by May 15.

 

On top of that, oral arguments have been scheduled for June 1 -- a month and a week from today.

[Cknolls]

http://www.ledgerdelaware.com/articles/200...a0453799066.txt

 

[Balta1701]

Longest running elections thread ever!

 

Oral arguments were made before the MN supreme court today. I'll outsource commentary to an election law blog who watched the proceedings.

Now that the oral arguments have concluded, here are my tentative thoughts (you can find my earlier live blog below the fold):

 

1. It is always dangerous to guess how a court is going to come out based upon oral argument. But there's good reason here to believe that the state Supreme Court Justices went into this with their minds made up: this case has been expedited pursuant to state law, and they've had two weeks (including three weekends) to think about how to decide this case based upon the briefs. They likely had a draft opinion or set of opinions in front of them. So this oral argument may be more of a tip off than most.

 

2. There's no question that Coleman's side got much tougher question than Franken's side, and based upon oral argument I would not be surprised to see a unanimous decision in favor of Franken in a relatively short time frame (within two weeks--maybe sooner). I counted at least three of the five Justices who were much more willing to accept Franken's arguments than Coleman's arguments, and who asked Coleman's side much more difficult questions.

 

3. It is not a surprise that Coleman would have a tougher time, and this is not a reflection on the quality of the lawyering on both sides. I expected a good argument from Marc Elias, for Franken, whom I know. I did not have any experience hearing Friedberg. But he was very good, addressing questions directly, not hiding behind rhetoric and not afraid to concede points he knew he could not win.

More at link. Basically, it's probably only a short time, matter of days to 2 weeks or so, before the MN supreme Court rules for Franken. Then the game really begins. Will the MN Supreme Court issue an edict requiring the governor to sign off on certification of the election? Will the governor risk his 2012 campaign and comply? Will the Coleman Camp attempt to hang things up by launching what will be essentially very unlikely to succeed challenges in Federal court?

[Rex Kickass]

Longest running elections thread ever!

 

Oral arguments were made before the MN supreme court today. I'll outsource commentary to an election law blog who watched the proceedings.

More at link. Basically, it's probably only a short time, matter of days to 2 weeks or so, before the MN supreme Court rules for Franken. Then the game really begins. Will the MN Supreme Court issue an edict requiring the governor to sign off on certification of the election? Will the governor risk his 2012 campaign and comply? Will the Coleman Camp attempt to hang things up by launching what will be essentially very unlikely to succeed challenges in Federal court?

 

Coleman will follow to the Supreme Court.

 

Pawlenty may end up seating Franken, because a 2012 run is harder if not seating Franken makes it harder to win in 2010.

 

If Pawlenty thinks Coleman has not shot in federal circles, there's no point to stick with him for 2012 aspirations. It's a dodge that will be forgotten in two plus years.

 

[mr_genius]

Coleman will follow to the Supreme Court.

 

Pawlenty may end up seating Franken, because a 2012 run is harder if not seating Franken makes it harder to win in 2010.

 

If Pawlenty thinks Coleman has not shot in federal circles, there's no point to stick with him for 2012 aspirations. It's a dodge that will be forgotten in two plus years.

 

Coleman needs to give it up. I wonder how much money has been spent on his legal efforts?

[Rex Kickass]

Coleman needs to give it up. I wonder how much money has been spent on his legal efforts?

 

The RSCC has given Coleman $750k to fight.