Q&A on the Franken-Coleman fight

Posted at 2:19 PM on June 30, 2009 by Bob Collins (18 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

Q: What happens now?

A: Al Franken needs an election certificate before he can enter the Senate. It has to be signed by the Secretary of State and the Governor.

Update 3:57 p.m. - Coleman has conceded the election. "I have always believed you do the best you can and leave the results up to a higher authority. I'm at peace with
that," Coleman said. "It's time to move forward."

Listen

Q: Where's the governor and what's his plan?

A: He's in Washington and released this statement shortly after Coleman conceded:

The Minnesota Supreme Court has today addressed the issues surrounding the accuracy and integrity of our election system during the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota. In light of that decision and Senator Coleman's announcement that he will not be pursuing an appeal, I will be signing the election certificate today as directed by the court and applicable law.

"I would like to thank Senator Coleman for his service. As state solicitor general, Mayor of Saint Paul and United States Senator, he has been an extraordinary leader and public servant for Minnesota.

"I also want to congratulate Al Franken and wish him well as he serves the people of Minnesota."

Sen. Harry Reid issued the following statement:

"I congratulate Senator-elect Al Franken, the next Senator from the state of Minnesota. The people of Minnesota will now finally get the brilliant and hardworking new senator they elected in November and the full representation they deserve. After all the votes have been counted and recounted, the Minnesota Supreme Court has made the final determination that Minnesotans have chosen Al Franken to help their state and our country get back on track. "The Senate looks forward to welcoming Senator-elect Franken as soon as possible. He will play a crucial role as we work to strengthen our economy, ensure all Americans can access and afford quality health care, make our country more energy independent, confirm the President's outstanding nominee to the Supreme Court, and tackle the many other challenges we face. "I once again encourage Governor Pawlenty to respect the votes of his constituents and the decisions of his state's highest court. He should put politics aside, follow his state's laws and finally sign the certificate that will bring this episode to an end."

The Senate is not currently in Washington. It's on its July 4th break.

Franken told reporters today he's "going up to the Range to do some parades." So it'll be a few days before he's sworn in. Listen

Q: Did judges on the Supreme Court all agree?

A: Yes. The decision was unanimous -- per curiam, in legal speak. Two members of the court abstained because they served on a panel that considered the issue earlier.

"Whatever your political point of view, you had someone on the court from your perspective, who from a political perspective would share your point of view. And yet, given that diversity, they all saw the law the same way. That's significant," Ned Foley said.

Q: Why did it take so long?

A: "One of the things that's always on the mind of judges and justices is not wanting to be reversed," said Prof. Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School, who also writes the Election Law blog. He says the decision was intended to keep Coleman from winning had he attempted to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

Q: Could Coleman have continued the fight?

Yes, according to Hasen. He had two options. "One is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court , the other is federal appeals court. He certainly has federal and constitutional issues, "and the Supreme Court is open for business to hear those."

A lawsuit to the federal appeals court would likely not have been successful, the professor said, because the court was likely to say the issues had already been decided at state court.

Q: Why didn't Coleman continue the fight?

A: Larry Jacobs at the University of Minnesota says Coleman is "busted" and also has to pay some of Al Franken's legal bills. Jacobs says Coleman also has his eyes on running for governor in 2010.

There was also little chance of success. Realistically, the federal options are only a few days' delay, Ned Foley of Ohio State told MPR's Gary Eichten this afternoon. "It's not going to delay it much further," he said.

Q: Will Coleman run for governor?
A: Not saying "no" when asked that question is saying "maybe." Coleman said he's more concerned with catching fish.

Q: How does this affect Washington?

A: Franken becomes the Democrats' 60th vote. That's the number required to avert filibusters. "...with both Senators Edward M. Kennedy and Robert C. Byrd absent due to illness, the Democrats have sometimes scrambled to make sure they had lined up enough votes," the New York Times notes.

Closer to home, we will likely start hearing opinions on critical issues from Sen.-elect Franken.

Q: So that's it, then? The Democrats get everything they want?

A: These are the Democrats. In-fighting is part of the party DNA. Just look at the veiled shots President Obama has sent Congress' way in the last month. As Forbes noted on Tuesday:

... rifts over climate change and energy policy tend to be more regional than partisan. Last week, a sweeping bill that addresses both issues barely squeaked by in the House. Even before the Minnesota court's ruling, the bill's future in the Senate was in doubt. Opponents worry that it would lead to rising energy costs and is too watered-down to be meaningful anyway.

The Democrats' biggest foe in climate change legislation last week wasn't a Republican. It was a Democratic congressman. From Minnesota.

"I'm not going to Washington to be the 60th Democratic senator. I'm going to be the second senator from Minnesota," he said on Tuesday.

Q: What committees will Franken serve on in the Senate?

The Health Education, Pension and Labor Committee; the Judiciary Committee; the Committee on Indian Affairs, and the Committee on Aging.

---

Comments (18)

Q: Is there anyone that really thinks Coleman is really a viable candidate for Governor of MN in 2010?

Posted by bsimon | June 30, 2009 2:50 PM

---

The real question to be asking is:

Did Minnesotans learn nothing about electing someone from the entertainment industry???

Posted by Rerock | June 30, 2009 3:24 PM

---

//Is there anyone that really thinks Coleman is really a viable candidate for Governor of MN in 2010?

Me. Keep in mind, he ran a very strong, if close, race with a DFLer in a year that Barack Obama was on the ticket.

Coleman is a very good politician and if you heard the news conference today, he's shifted back into the "tone" mode that helped him beat Mondale and helped keep him close to Franken.

That's his specialty and it's proven effective.

He also fought a fight on behalf of the party, which -- frankly -- owes him, now.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 30, 2009 3:35 PM

---

Thanks for your excellent coverage of this event. I'm grateful we can move on with two Senators in Washington.

Posted by Joanna | June 30, 2009 3:54 PM

---

I love Al Franken. He is an intelligent person that has done what Limpbaugh and co won't. He put his butt on the ballot and won.

Posted by Jimi | June 30, 2009 3:57 PM

---

//Coleman is a very good politician and if you heard the news conference today, he's shifted back into the "tone" mode that helped him beat Mondale and helped keep him close to Franken

"tone" mode , don't you mean attonement mode?

beat Mondale because the original runner died in a "plane crash" ?

//He also fought a fight on behalf of the party, which -- frankly -- owes him, now.

spoken like a Republican.
Don't you thnk that Coleman was appealing just for Coleman's sake, in other words self interest?

Posted by eyeswideopen | June 30, 2009 4:30 PM

---

I'm with Bob. With Pawlenty out, I'd have to say that Coleman isn't just viable, if he joins the race, he's the favorite. It's amazing how short voters' memories are, so while the recount fight will probably affect him somewhat, it won't be a huge detriment. When you add a not-that-impressive slate of DFL candidates, and the likelihood of an IP candidate (named Anderson or otherwise) with a skilled politician who has done well at the state level twice now--remember he came in second to some guy named Jesse--and you have a tough candidate.

Posted by MR | June 30, 2009 4:34 PM

---

A clarification--Coleman has done well at the state level and lost twice, he's done well three times overall.

Posted by MR | June 30, 2009 4:38 PM

---

//beat Mondale because the original runner died in a "plane crash" ?

I think that's somewhat revisionist. The Democrats had a problem of the memorial service and it played right into Coleman's ads at the time which were about bipartisnahip and tone.

Then at the last debate, Mondale would say something and Coleman would say "see, that's the kind of tone we need to get rid of in Washington."

It was a winning strategy. He won.

And while people think he won because Wellstone was dead, most of the time, a candidate's death attracts more votes to that party; not less.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 30, 2009 4:43 PM

---

///Then at the last debate, Mondale would say something and Coleman would say "see, that's the kind of tone we need to get rid of in Washington."

could you please elaborate on the "tone" for me. are you saying that Coleman is a master manipulator becasue if you are I would think most honest people stay away from those types.

//And while people think he won because Wellstone was dead, most of the time, a candidate's death attracts more votes to that party; not less.

....for example....

Posted by eyeswideopen | June 30, 2009 4:55 PM

---

I have just listened to about an hour of commentary and interviews on MPR, and I have not heard one word about what I think is the most important conclusion to be drawn from this whole mess and that is the need to reform and standardize the absentee voting process. That is what led to all this and yet no one is talking about looking at the system to see how it can be improved for next time. Why????

Posted by Tommyrey | June 30, 2009 5:04 PM

---

Actually, Rep. Jeremy Kalin was on with Gary during the special coverage this afternoon and noted Gov. Pawlenty vetoed elements of election reform in 2007. And also -- even though the most controversial measures were removed -- I believe a similar bill was vetoed in this session.

So nothing, actually, is going to be done before next time unless a lame duck governor signs a bill next session, which doesn't seem at all likely.

I've written here before about this, but does it REALLY make sense to have the counties in charge of elections? Why have 87 different possible ways of conducting elections? Why not just one?

Posted by Bob Collins | June 30, 2009 5:34 PM

---

//could you please elaborate on the "tone" for me. are you saying that Coleman is a master manipulator becasue if you are I would think most honest people stay away from those types.

You say "master manipulator," I say "politician." Others say "same thing." Coleman is not a stupid politician and if you go back and look at some of the live b logging I did during the Senate debates, you'll see where I pointed out he was going with the theme again.

Go back to this story on that final debate in 2002 and read the quotes. See if they don't sound familiar.

Is it a winning formula? Hey, the guy came within 317 votes of pulling it off.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 30, 2009 5:37 PM

---

I hear some suggesting Franken should moderate his liberal perspective as senator to honor the more conservative voters who supported his opponent.

Tell that to Governor Pawlenty for the last six years. Tell that to Norm Coleman for the last six years, or the last eight months. Why is it always progressive candidates who are expected to swing center and play extra nice with the opposition?

Posted by Michael Gardos Reid | June 30, 2009 7:56 PM

---

Bob, you said that the Republican Party owes Coleman. One question I didn't hear asked at the presser today was, what happens to the almost $1 million the national party raised to help his legal efforts, including $750,000 last month? Is that money all spent? If there's some left over, does Coleman refund it? Because if Coleman keeps it for himself to fight off these lawsuits in Texas or for other purposes, that would be taking money under false pretenses, wouldn't it?

Posted by Chris | June 30, 2009 8:37 PM

---

I am w/ Bob in that Coleman would make a 'good' candidate, but moreso a 'viable' one as MR said, as I am not exactly a fan.... He is a very savvy politician and the candidates I have heard for the DFL are not shining stars, to say the least - also, the Dem's are as good as they get at blowing elections.
I am also w/ Tommyrey regarding how the theme coming out of this should be: how are we going to prevent another situation like this from occuring. Not just standardizing absentee balloting, but having a better process at hand for how to deal w/ close elections so we don't end up sans representation and having our election process being even more costly. If we demand reform from out representatives, maybe they will quit vetoing reform. (maybe) Lastly, do we really have 87 different ways? My limited understanding is that the counties have a small amount of wiggle room to comply w/ the regulations. How wrong am I?

Posted by Ben | July 1, 2009 12:54 AM

---

"A clarification--Coleman has done well at the state level and lost twice, he's done well three times overall."

I suppose it depends on how one looks at it. I see a guy who can't win the majority, and lost to a wrestler and a satirist while beating a dead guy.

I'm also not convinced that 2010 will be about 'tone'. Pawlenty gave us 'tone' too - and what do we have to show for it? A projected $4.4 billion shortfall for the next gov to repair. The candidate who wins the governorship will be the one that levels with the voters about the hard decisions that have to be made: either eliminate services or raise taxes. I'm not convinced Coleman is capable of making that argument, much less selling it.

Posted by bsimon | July 1, 2009 8:50 AM

---

The "can't win a majority" is a bit of a red herring, though. How often does someone win a majority with a strong third party involved?

I also think people STILL don't understand why Jesse Ventura won the gubernatorial race in 1998. That's partly the work of the DFL and GOP, who have worked very hard to pretend it didn't have something to do with a rejection of the way they govern and the way they speak.

Pawlenty never really went with the "tone" thing. He was all about the economy and the defacto Republican motto -- 'I've got mine!" That's ALWAYS going to resonate with a large number of people.

It also didn't hurt that Mike hatch imploded. The surprise there was it took so long for him to do so.

But the fact he did -- and the fact there was some significant reaction to it -- also confirms the value of talking bipartisanship and tone and all of those things that people want and politicians mostly don't deliver.

Posted by Bob Collins | July 1, 2009 9:50 AM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor