Coleman v. Franken Decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court,

unanimously in Franken's favor. Thanks to Barton Jacka for the pointer.

ruuffles (mail) (www):
They also explicitly ordered the rewarding of the certificate.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn.
32 Stat. ยง 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.
6.30.2009 2:40pm
rick.felt:
Inevitable from the moment the recount began. Recounts never favor Republicans.

(No opinion on whether the MN Supreme Court was legally correct here).
6.30.2009 2:47pm
AJK:
That's a shame.
6.30.2009 2:52pm
gab:
Wasn't there a recount in Florida in 2000?
6.30.2009 2:58pm
eyesay:
rick.felt wrote:
Recounts never favor Republicans.
Citation needed
6.30.2009 2:58pm
interruptus:
Honestly this whole process has not cast the best light on the NRSC and Coleman, since they've been even more egregious sore losers than the infamous "Sore/Loserman" ticket of 2000 in their whining about recounts and new procedural flaws appearing under every rock and in every nook and cranny. The ruling finally ending it is particularly embarrassing, since not a single judge agreed that Coleman's case was meritorious, despite 6 of the 8 judges being Republican appointees (one had even donated to Coleman's past campaigns!).
6.30.2009 3:00pm
Joe Kowalski (mail):

Wasn't there a recount in Florida in 2000?

There was, but the whole point of the outcome of Bush v. Gore was that the recount should be stopped and the original results should stand.
6.30.2009 3:01pm
AnthonyJ (mail):
Recounts have a tendency to favor democrats, due to voter demographics (certain groups that tend to vote democratic also produce a disproportionate number of difficult to process ballots), but it's not universal, and plenty of recounts have no effect on the outcome.
6.30.2009 3:02pm
Henry679 (mail):
Goodbye, sweet prince. If they had a re-vote tomorrow, you'd be lucky to get 35%, you whining, self-absorbed crybaby.
6.30.2009 3:05pm
Tom952 (mail):
Congress gets another joker.
6.30.2009 3:07pm
byomtov (mail):
Is saying Franken is entitled to receive the certificate the same as ordering Pawlenty to issue it?
6.30.2009 3:09pm
richard1 (mail):
Is saying Franken is entitled to receive the certificate the same as ordering Pawlenty to issue it?

Not quite. I think it allows Pawlenty the chance to issue it with an order coming later if he does not (assuming no federal court intervenes in the interim)
6.30.2009 3:12pm
just me (mail):
No big surprise-as soon as all those extra votes for Franken started pouring in, it was pretty clear Franken was going to win.

I would like to see a cite for an election where the republican was the loser in a close election and actually won, because I don't think it exists. It seems like the democrats know how to find just enough votes for their candidates to win.

Seems to me in close elections they should either have a run off between the two winners where there were viable third party candidates, or flip a coin.
6.30.2009 3:20pm
frankcross (mail):
just google "recount republican winner" It pulls up stuff on Minnesota but also multiple cases where the Republican won a recount
6.30.2009 3:41pm
KenB (mail):
So are we going to be hearing about Franken being appointed Senator?
6.30.2009 3:45pm
RPT (mail):
"There was, but the whole point of the outcome of Bush v. Gore was that the recount should be stopped and the original results should stand."

Well, not quite. The Florida recount was stopped so that the winner could be judicially determined. And he was. Anyone who actually followed the reports of the Coleman challenge can appreciate that the real winners were his lawyers; $1M+ in fees for a lot of really bad work which bought a very long delay.
6.30.2009 4:31pm
U.Va. Grad:
Is saying Franken is entitled to receive the certificate the same as ordering Pawlenty to issue it?

No, but Pawlenty was already on the record as saying he'd take what the Minnesota courts had determined to be the proper course of action without waiting for federal courts to weigh in.

And Coleman has announced he won't appeal anyway, so it's a moot point.
6.30.2009 4:35pm
Michael Ejercito (mail) (www):

just google "recount republican winner" It pulls up stuff on Minnesota but also multiple cases where the Republican won a recount

Then you can come up with an example.
6.30.2009 4:43pm
U.Va. Grad:
Then you can come up with an example.

Here's two from the first page of Google results:

Deborah Pryce, R-OH, won a recount for a US House seat in 2006 and retained her seat.

Louis Pate, R-NC, won a recount for a NC House seat in 2002, defeating the incumbed Democratic Speaker of the House and shifting control of the chamber to Republicans for only the fourth time since 1898.
6.30.2009 4:59pm
U.Va. Grad:
incumbed

"incumbent," of course. Sorry.
6.30.2009 5:00pm
Anderson (mail):
Nice verb though. The challenger did his best, but his opponent incumbed notwithstanding.
6.30.2009 5:05pm
CDR D (mail):
This is great!

They had a professional wrestler for governor, and now a failed clown for senator.

Hey... Pee Wee Herman... if you are looking for a career in politics, check out Minnesota.
6.30.2009 6:42pm
RPT (mail):
Peewee Herman, meet Monica Bachmann.
6.30.2009 8:35pm
just me (mail):
Deborah Pryce, R-OH,

Louis Pate, R-NC


Neither of these work, since neither lost in the original count and then came back and won.

I googled what you suggested, and over the first three pages found no examples of a republican losing in the election count and then winning in the recount.

There have been multiple instances of a GOP candidate winning in the election day count, but then losing on the recount.

After a while, I start to have doubts that there aren't shenanigans going on among democratic led election boards.
6.30.2009 9:25pm
Floridan:
just me: "After a while, I start to have doubts that there aren't shenanigans going on among democratic led election boards."

If it is obvious to you, sitting at home in front of your computer, I wonder why the well-funded Coleman recount campaign couldn't find anything of this nature that would stand up in court(s)?

Perhaps you are right and Coleman was just too stupid to figure it out and get the goods on Franken. In which case, maybe he isn't smart enough to be a Senator.
6.30.2009 9:55pm
Hank Gillette:

They had a professional wrestler for governor, and now a failed clown for senator.


And now they are getting Franken.
6.30.2009 11:19pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.