Is Coleman v. Franken headed for a re-do?

The short answer is – it’s very unlikely that Al Franken and Norm Coleman will go back to the beginning and face each other for the votes of Minnesotans.  And yet, that slight possibility may be Norm Coleman’s best shot. Or, to put it the other way around, forcing a new election may be the best shot that Republicans have to prevent Al Franken from being seated in the Senate late this spring or this summer.

Why are we talking about this?

The idea has been around for months, but mostly in the background. Former Sen. Coleman himself did more than hint about it in a recent radio interview. Coleman’s legal team has never made it an explicit proposal, but has seemed to leave the idea just barely unsaid on many occasions. Today, after resting his case, Coleman lawyer/spokester Ben Ginsberg said he doubted “whether the results of this election will ever be accurate.” Asked by a reporter (no, not me) whether that means the only solution would be a re-vote, Ginsberg replied, “That’s for the three judges to deal with. They’re gonna have to come to grips with it.”

Then, after the end of the court day, a letter was posted on the court’s website in which Coleman lawyer James Langdon made the idea more explicit than ever, suggesting to the court that:

“Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates — and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast, the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election.”

Langdon gave the three-judge panel citations to cases from several states in which this had happened. So Team Coleman has put the idea of a re-do more clearly on the table.

Why is it unlikely?

Minnesota law contains no provision for a do-over election, nor has one ever occurred to my knowledge. (There apparently is a provision for a coin toss, in case of an actual tie vote, and this has occurred for some small, local offices.) A coin toss may seem too stupid to be possible here, but it is actually in the law and could be used if the final result was a literal tie. But what we are dealing with here is not a literal tie, but what some people are calling a statistical tie or a virtual tie.

A law on do-overs would either have to be enacted by the Legislature, or be created on the fly, by a judge (or group of judges). Judges are bound by the law, which, in the case of election contests states that:

“When a contest relates to the office of senator or a member of the house of representatives of the United States, the only question to be decided by the court is which party to the contest received the highest number of votes legally cast at the election and is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election.”

There is not discussion of what the court should do if it decides that the election was just too close to call.

Judges do have somewhat mysterious and vague authority called “equitable powers,” which I gather means some discretion to impose an equitable solution. Perhaps, under that doctrine, a court could decide that a re-do election was the equitable solution.

Why is it Coleman’s best shot?

1. For starters, because his next best shot would be to pick up enough votes during the recount/contest to have the judges rule that he “received the highest number of votes legally cast at the election and is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election.” Despite protestations of confidence by Ginsberg and Coleman that if all the votes are counted and counted only once, Coleman will be declared the winner, I don’t know anyone who is not on their team, who has been following process closely, who thinks Team Coleman has met that burden. And they did, after all, rest their case yesterday.

2. Because I do know many close observers who believe that the argument Team Coleman has been developing for a re-do is not a terrible argument. That argument is this (and please, if you are rooting for Franken, try to imagine how you would feel about this argument if it was Franken’s last, best shot):

Various counties used different standards in accepting and rejecting absentee ballots, some stricter and some looser. The ThreeJudges have now ruled on the proper standard for deciding which votes were “legally cast.” It’s a high one. Some number of ballots that would not meet those high standards were nonetheless accepted and counted in low-standard counties and they cannot now be uncounted (because they were separated from the absentee ballot applications on which the errors were made and are now mixed in with the rest of the ballots).

So the final tally that the contest court will reach, from which they are supposed to decide “which party to the contest received the highest number of votes legally cast at the election and is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election” includes votes that were not legally cast. So, with the margin so small, it is impossible to know with certainty which candidate got the most legally cast ballots.

Remember, I didn’t say it was a great killer argument. There are lots of counterarguments (some on the technical/procedural side, such as that Coleman didn’t raise these points soon enough, some in a rough common-sensical way, such as the argument that if this is a reason for throwing out an election, then all very close elections will have to be done over, since we have learned during this recount that even a state-of-the-art system, administered without fraud, will produce some number of questionable decisions by local officials). I said only that it isn’t a terrible argument.

3. Because Team Coleman can try this argument up to four times. They can make it to the three-judge panel; they can make it on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court; if that fails, they can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case; and they can also start over in a federal court. (The Minnesota Supreme Court will certainly hear the case, if Coleman appeals. The U.S. Supremes, and the federal judge from whom they could theoretically try to get another shot would apply complex legal principles in deciding whether to take the case. But they could try.)

4. Because if they lose those four times, they could get one more short before a body that is more frankly allowed to take politics into consideration and within which Team Coleman has some friends. We’re talking the U.S. Senate.

So far, the 41 Senate Republicans have stuck together around the idea that they don’t have to seat Franken until he has a certificate of election. (Under Minnesota law — although Franken is challenging this — you don’t get a certificate of election until at least the state courts are done with the case.)

Suppose the new election argument loses at every level of the court. Suppose Franken is awarded the certificate. (We could pause for a moment to consider whether Gov. Pawlenty has any discretion at that point. He is supposed to prepare the certificate and sign it. Presumably, he would rather see another Republican in the Senate. But it seems unlikely that he would risk looking like a hyper-partisan by refusing to sign the certificate. Who knows?)

Now, under this scenario, Franken presents himself for seating. The Senate has given great weight to those certificates, but the Republicans are not legally bound to honor them. The Constitution gives the Senate almost complete authority over whom it seats and the courts have seldom interfered. If the 41 Republicans still want to keep the seat open and keep alive the chance of filling it with a member of their party, they could decide to filibuster anyway. If they decided to do so, they could claim that because of the not-terrible arguments in No. 2. above, they cannot be sure that Franken really won. They could ask for a Rules Committee investigation. They could demand that the disputed ballots or the key witnesses be brought to Washington for examination.

This seems far-fetched, and it is, but something like this happened in the most messed-up Senate election case ever. In the 1974 New Hampshire election (I’ve written about this before) Republican Louis Wyman led on election night by just 355 votes. After a recount, Democrat John Durkin led by 10 votes. After a second recount, Wyman led by TWO votes. The Senate decided to study the case itself. There was a significant Dem majority, and after the committee process, the majority wanted to seat Durkin. But the Repubs (with a few conservative Dem allies) mounted a successful filibuster. It lasted for months, Durkin and Wyman actually sitting in the back of the Senate chamber, monitoring the discussion of their case.

During JUNE and JULY, the Senate took a record six cloture votes but couldn’t break the filibuster. So, how did it finally get resolved:

New Hampshire held a re-do election. It wasn’t imposed by a judge, and although the U.S. Senate by that point favored the re-do, it lacked the authority to tell New Hampshire what to do. But, earlier in the process, the New Hampshire Legislature had enacted a law specifically stating that if the Senate declared the seat vacant, a new election would be held within 45 days. The Senate had been open to this idea for a while, but Durkin resisted, apparently believing that the big Dem majority gave him the advantage. (And he was appropriately mocked for fearing to go home and let the voters settle the matter.) Finally, the determination of the filibusterers apparently convinced Durkin that he would never get the seat without the special election. With his assent, the Senate voted 71-21 to declare the vacancy, which triggered the re-do election.

The governor (a Republican) appointed as a temporary senator until the election the Republican senator who had just retired setting off the DurkinWyman race.

Despite the fact that it is rooted in a real case from not-so-long-ago, this scenario has drifted deep into fantasy. And yet, the parties and players line up rather nicely across the two cases. The hardest part to figure is whether the Senate Repubs would be willing to risk the political heat they would take from all but the most partisan for refusing the seat a certified winner.

But as long as we’re here, a few other questions to ponder. If it looked like the Senate was going to tie up the matter indefinitely, would the Minnesota Legislature pass a law for a special election? Who would Gov. Pawlenty choose to serve as a temporary senator? I say he wouldn’t dare choose Coleman. Think senior statesman types. Make your guesses in the comment thread.

Would the election be a runoff between Coleman and Franken or would the Independence and minor parties be on the ballot. (I say yes, all the parties. In the New Hampshire case, there was a third-party candidate on the special election ballot.) If the Dems and Repubs had an opportunity to nominate whom they wanted (presumably on some abbreviated process), would they stick with Franken and Coleman? Hmmm?

OKy, a couple of last matters about which you might be wondering. Yes, there are already laws on the books that describe vacancies that might be created in public office and that set rules for a temporary appointment and a special election in case of a Senate vacancy. If there were a legal vacancy for a Senate seat, the existing law already calls for a special election, although not until November. And it’s not clear how that election would be triggered. The seat seems kinda vacant, even now, but the circumstances named in the law as creating vacancies don’t contemplate exactly this situation, although some come close.

If you’re wondering, John Durkin, the Democrat (and the one who held out the longest against the idea of a special election) won the re-do by a solid margin that surprised everyone. He served the balance of that one term and then was defeated for re-election.

(I thank Dr. Betty Koed of the Senate Historical Office for help in understanding the New Hampshire case.)

 

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (14)

  1. Submitted by Eric Ferguson on 03/03/2009 - 01:06 am.

    I can understand Coleman partisans seeking another election if that’s their only hope, but I have a question for those who just think a second election would settle it: how do you know another election, whether runoff or all candidates, won’t result in another tie?

  2. Submitted by Peter Soulen on 03/03/2009 - 07:46 am.

    Very nice Mr. Black, I have long enjoyed your analysis.

    Can you or another commenter help me understand why this Equal Protection issue has such long legs? I can understand that if voters had their ballots accepted or rejected because of inconsistent application of rules within the voters own county but what’s wrong with counties having some variation in their rules?

    I live in Hennepin County. I don’t expect my vote to be treated the same way they do in St. Louis County… If I wanted that, wouldn’t I need to move to Duluth, and vote there? By this logic, shouldn’t all the states have the same standards too? They don’t. Or do they?

    I guess that Team Coleman has the “not a terrible argument” thing on its side because this show looks to be going long and I don’t see a hook in the wings…

  3. Submitted by Peter Lindstrom on 03/03/2009 - 09:22 am.

    I appreciate your thoughtfull analysis but as someone who has worked a few recounts in different states, you’ve made a couple of errors & are unaware of a few helpful details, such as:

    1) A judge cannot “on the fly” order a new election if it is not an existing option under election law; if judges had that kind of power, they could grant themselves the power to raise taxes to solve problems (& yes, I know judges have tried to do exercuse such power in the past–& were overruled by higher courts in every case)

    2) On the Durkin/Wyman election, ballot security in NH in 1974 was very different than in MN in 2008–for starters, no matter how many times they recounted, the margin in NH was bewtween 10 to 300 votes either way but both sides agreed there were more than 3,000 problem ballots & no way to agree on how to count them. Also, back in 1975, a 59-39 Democratic majority Senate decided to declare the seat vacant only b.c. the retiring (Republican) Senator agreed to come back to hold the seat a few months, & the GOP governor agreed. If the Senate were to declare the MN seat vacant, Gov. Pawlenty has the full power to appoint a seat holder until the election–guess who he’d pick? Even if Pawlenty promised not to make Coleman an interim Senator, as the Burris case illustrates, if he broke that promise, there is nothing the Senate could do.

    3) You address this w/o making clear; Coleman’s argument of “equal protection” through Bush v. Gore case is really arguing the election “wasn’t fair” & so let’s do it over–but this is a PR arguement. As any legal observer will tell you, courts don’t put themselves in the position of determining what’s fair, only if it is fair enough–if the Coleman standard is absolute fairness, than every criminal trial & the 2000 presidental election would be up for a re-do. Which is why Coleman’s side is claiming, without merit, there was corruption.

    But these last two are minor point–the biggest point you missed was one I nearly experienced working in a re-do eleciton; namely there is no assurance you won’t get the same result, leading to another recanvass, legal challenge & months of waiting.

    This has not been an experience MN wants to have again, I’m sure

  4. Submitted by Jim Bullington on 03/03/2009 - 09:32 am.

    The problem with a do-over is that the votes would STILL be judged under the current voting system which is showing problems (at least according to Coleman).
    We as people of the state of Minnesota really need to start working on a better voting system that does not get locked in the courts for months.
    We are in a pretty sorry State if the possibility exists for Coleman to keep Franken out of office for 6 years. Yes, you could say the opposite (i.e. if you support Coleman over Franken), BUT, this war in the courts is terrible for Minnesota.

  5. Submitted by Molly MacGregor on 03/03/2009 - 12:49 pm.

    Fun to think of who could be the temporary senator, appointed by Pawelenty. Here’s one: Kris Sanda, Met Council commissioner, with a long record of service to various MN governors, former public service commissioner, lives in the suburbs from from NW MN…

    Also, George Latimer, another senior statemen type, who has been working on voting issues, but he is a democrat.

    If there were a do-over election, would it be all three candidates? wouldn’t the independent win? who would vote???????

    Great article; MinnPost coverage of the trial is terrific.

  6. Submitted by Bruce Johnson on 03/03/2009 - 12:58 pm.

    Eric — a good summary of history and law and good comments, but I think there is another argument against the ‘redo’ that has to do with equity.
    There is first of all the practical argument that with no real changes in the election process and procedures, it is highly likely that any ‘redo’ would result in a similar number of ambiguous and erroneous ballots and rulings by local election judges. There is really no remedy in that remedy.
    More importantly however, there is no justice in such a remedy. This election took place in a context of a highly engaged electorate. There were numerous debates, thousands of people involved in campaigns and get out the vote efforts, and millions of dollars spent on both sides.
    A ‘redo’ would undo all of those efforts and disenfranchise all voters in the 2008 election. It would demand a new campaign and significant new fund raising efforts. And it would almost certainly not engage — after the slanders of the current process — engage anywhere near the same number of voters.

  7. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 03/03/2009 - 02:04 pm.

    This case presents the perfect argument for an instant runoff system.

    The votes of those persons who chose Dean Barkley as their first choice for senator would, in order to settle the election between the top two vote getters, be allocated instead to their #2 choice. Unless they were evenly divided between Franken and Coleman, this re-allocation would have shown a clear winner within a short time.

    It works for Australia.

  8. Submitted by Tom Weyandt on 03/03/2009 - 02:21 pm.

    The problem seems to me to be the creation of the expectation that there is going to be a perfect system and a perfect result. That simply isn’t possible so long as some type of efficiency and finality is a goal and real live people are involved in the process. I suppose we could have a three judge panel run every single vote cast through a machine, and have them review every single absentee ballot, and have them review every single piece of voter registration material. But then would it be perfect or simply what those three people saw as the correct answer at a given time?

    The microscope of this effort doesn’t point out flaws as much as it points out the foolish ends that people will go to in order to achieve their goal. Elections are supposed to be completed in hours, not months.

  9. Submitted by Brian Simon on 03/03/2009 - 02:49 pm.

    Peter Soulen writes
    “I live in Hennepin County. I don’t expect my vote to be treated the same way they do in St. Louis County…”

    At this point, I expect the judges to rule along those lines. I think the equal protection argument is bunk, unless they can find elections officials that deliberately applied rules differently to different voters. At some point you have to say: this is our process, flawed though it might be & here’s the outcome. Done. Cry in your beer and move on.

    Eric writes
    “We could pause for a moment to consider whether Gov. Pawlenty has any discretion at that point. He is supposed to prepare the certificate and sign it. Presumably, he would rather see another Republican in the Senate. But it seems unlikely that he would risk looking like a hyper-partisan by refusing to sign the certificate. Who knows?”

    Gov Pawlenty is in a tough spot. At this point he has effectively deferred having to make a decision by pointing to the legal process of contesting an election. If the three judge panel agrees with the canvassing board, the Governor’s excuse is diminished. If the panel confirms the canvassing board’s results & former Sen Coleman chooses to pursue other courts, the Gov will appear as hyperpartisan to Dems and many moderates, or he will appear as a RINO to national Repubs & kill his chances for higher office within the GOP. For Gov Pawlenty, the best outcome is for the the loser (whomever that is) to not pursue appeals to higher courts, so he can just sign the certificate and spare himself the challenge of making a difficult decision.

  10. Submitted by David Thompson on 03/03/2009 - 03:13 pm.

    Just thinking about a special election makes my stomach hurt. Let’s not go there.

  11. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/03/2009 - 03:44 pm.

    A couple of points:

    “Redo” is vague.
    And the statute on vacant offices cited in the next post says nothing about how the vacancy is to be filled.

    In the context of the current election there are two possibilities:
    1. A runoff ballot. This is NOT a NEW election, but rather a continuation of the current one to produce a majority by having voters chose between the two leading candidates. A court would declare the current election incomplete, not invalid.

    A NEW election, which would be more consistent with a declaration of vacancy. It would seem more likely that the Senate would order this.
    A new election would be open to all candidates from all parties.

    On the topic of candidates for temporary senators, I can think of three former Senators who would make logical candidates.
    In order of likelihood:
    1. Walter Mondale.
    Well respected. A partisan Democrat, but his political career is over, so he might be acceptable to Pawlenty.
    2. David Durenberger.
    Not quite Mondale’s elder statesman image, but also past his politicking days, and as a moderate Republican he’d be a good compromise.
    3. Mark Dayton.
    Since he’s still active in politics, and left under a bit of a PR cloud, he seems unlikely.
    4. Rudy Boschwitz.
    Politically inactive, but also lacks the elder statesman image.

    Another possibility:
    Former Governor Arne Carlson.
    Also a well regarded moderate Republican.

  12. Submitted by ken iosso on 03/03/2009 - 04:19 pm.

    “the law is the law is the law” to quote a Coleman lawyer. And the law does not allow this.

    But the common sense is so much stronger than the even the legal arguments against this idiotic “remedy.”

    1) A new election would cost the state hundreds of thouseands if not millions to administer. At a time when the budget is a disaster, nobody, not even Pawlenty, wants this. And we’ve already had our election officials working overtime for 6 months and we’re going to throw that work away and tell them to get ready for another!???

    2) There is no law for how it would be done or who it would include (just franken & coleman? coleman, franken, & barkley? whoever wanted to?). And any way we did it would be flawed.

    3) It would take months longer. And there is no date set. The one thing we could be sure of is that many many fewer would vote in the election, effectively disenfranchising at least a million voters.

    4) No one could tolerate if it was close and there was another recount, but the likelihood of that happening is pretty decent.

  13. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/03/2009 - 08:56 pm.

    On the issue of some sort of revote resulting in another statistical tie:
    I’ll leave it for the professional statisticians to calculate the specifics, but it’s my feeling as someone who has worked professionally with statistics (retired professor of experimental psychology) that the odds are that a revote would NOT be as close — possible, but not likely.

  14. Submitted by Richard Mensing on 03/08/2009 - 02:13 pm.

    The do-over idea put forth by team Coleman has been given more attention that it deserves.(Today’s lead story in the Tribune, too). It’s a bit like a duffer asking for mulligan because he finished one stroke behind. Such nonsense should be scoffed at not given serious consideration. We all know (or should know) that Coleman has no chance of winning. The Republican strategy now is to delay the seating of Franken for as long as possible.

Leave a Reply