Is it over for Norm Coleman?

Posted by: ST on June 7, 2009 at 11:40 am

The Politico reports this morning that things aren’t looking good for Norm Coleman in his bid to defeat liberal laughingstock Al Franken to retain his seat in the Senate:

Seven months after Minnesota’s Senate election, the state’s highest court hasn’t reached a decision but election law experts agree: Norm Coleman doesn’t have a prayer.

These experts see almost no chance Coleman’s lawyers will prevail in their appeal to the state’s high court to count more ballots in a bid to erase Al Franken’s slim lead.

Peter Knapp, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, pointed to the court’s oral arguments on Monday, when the justices expressed skepticism toward Coleman’s lawyer, Joe Friedberg.

“Each of the five justices asked some questions that seemed to hone in on the absence of evidence,” said Knapp, an expert on the Minnesota Supreme Court who has kept a close eye on the case. “And when each of the five are asking those questions, that’s significant.”

He cautioned that “it’s really easy to over-read the judges’ questions as a sign of the way they’re leaning,” but added: “That being said, if I had to put money on the outcome – my money would be on Franken.”

Edward B. Foley, an election law expert at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, agreed: “Based on the questioning, I’d be surprised if Coleman got a remand back to the trial court.”

Foley said that Coleman’s lawyers “always had a fighting chance” based on legal theory — but, he pointed out, “having a valid legal theory is not enough to win a lawsuit.”

He and other legal scholars interviewed by POLITICO said that that the facts were simply not on Coleman’s side. Friedberg’s task this week was to convince the justices of his contention that more than 4,000 additional absentee ballots should be included in the final vote tally because they had not been handled in the same way by every county.

Back in April, Minnesota legal blogger Scott Johnson from the Power Line blog wrote a piece for National Review that summarized the situation there for both Coleman and Franken, and he noted that in spite of what it appeared like on the surface, that Franken was “not” trying to steal the election. Coleman’s post-election day strategy has just been deeply flawed – not only that, but in all honesty he wouldn’t be in this position if he had been a better Senator.

Minnesota stands poised to name a lying liberal thug to the United States Senate. It’s hard to figure out whether or not this says more about the voters of Minnesota, or Norm Coleman – or both.

Cross-posted to Right Wing News, where I am helping guestblog for John Hawkins on Sundays.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 Responses to “Is it over for Norm Coleman?”


  1. One should bear in mind, too, that there was a 3rd candidate in that race who I think drew more votes from Coleman than Franken, thus illustrating the dangers of 3rd parties: you may well wind up with someone worse.

    And Norm had his strong points as a senator: he was like a bulldog going after UN corruption in the Oil-for-Food scandal, and I believe it was he who called on the carpet the execrable George Galloway, erstwhile UK parliamentarian and willing stooge of Saddam.

  2. Severian says:

    The MN courts have dropped the ball on this since the beginning. The real place this challenge belongs is in Federal court, as in the SCOTUS. There is ample evidence that the widely disparate ways votes were counted in different precincts and counties are an Equal Protection issue, and there still remains the little problem of double counted votes, suddenly “discovered” votes, etc.

    The MN election sucks, it’s as crooked as the Washington state governors race. But with ACORN and Democrat Sec of States running roughshod over fair elections, expect to see this kind of nonsense become par for the course.

    As Stalin said, it’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes. Americans should be ashamed at what our voting has degenerated into. Iraqi elections were fairer and more honest.

  3. Kate says:

    It seems to me this would be a good case for the SCOTUS. If Norm can find the legal stamina and acumen to get it there. Of course there is always the Attorney General’s office….which will not do a thing related to voting fraud, even a cursory investigation as window dressing to show how the Obama Administration is concerned about voter’s rights.

    Ah, such is life in the state of Red Green…maybe some well placed duct tape over Coleman’s mouth will smooth the whole thing over???? Sounds about right since they will be stuck with a senator who was a second-class comedy writer/producer.

  4. Lee says:

    While MN voters – and by extension, ALL MN residents – deserve al franken, American citizens do not, and unfortunately their vote of no confidence for the Republican incumbent will give Obama al POTUS his super majority on Capitol Hill to ram through his national socialist agenda.

  5. Florenzo says:

    Let me get this straight. For a LONG LONG
    periord of time NORM COLEMAN contested the election between him and Al Franken.

    Then I read this: A senior politician with the Hezbollah-led bloc told Reuters: “We have lost the election in Lebanon. We accept the result as the will of the people.”

    On that basis, Norm Coleman you are a friggin disgrace to humanity.

  6. Carlos says:

    O.K., so he went after the U.N. like a bulldog. Good on him.

    But if he had represented his constituents and the people of the United States instead of sucking up to donkey ideas and ways, my guess is he’d still be a senator, and a further guess is he’d be a senator by a comfortable margin.

    Take note, Mr. Steele. Take note, Mr. McCain. And take note, Mr. Boehner.

  7. Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET says:

    I have a buddy at a rock quarry in Minnesota. He is a Retired Army Warrant Officer and his views on the senator-elect and the people that voted for him are…..colorful, to say the least. S for me, Franken is a useless piece of s***. I would not stand at attention in his presence, regardless of circumstances. He is not worthy of any respect in this old seadog’s eyes, only contempt. Especially, when the election was bought and paid for by acorn and company.