As predicted in yesterday’s update, Team Franken filed a motion around lunchtime yesterday with the Minnesota Supreme Court for an expedited case schedule for the appeal lodged on Monday by Norm Coleman’s people. And when they say "expedited", they mean it: They call for the record of the Election Contest Court (referred to as the "District Court") proceedings to be delivered to the MNSC by the close of business Wednesday (that’s today), Coleman’s opening briefs to start next Monday the 27, Franken’s brief to start Saturday May 2, and Coleman’s final brief on Monday, May 4 at the latest, with oral arguments to start very soon afterwards.
There looks to be plenty of statutory justification, as well as past precedent pertaining to this particular contest, for this move. From page two of the motion:
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 209 contemplates that election contests will be expedited. For example, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 209.065, the contest proceedings were brought on for trial twenty days after the notice of contest was filed.
Chapter 209 also provides that appeals from a District Court decision should be expedited. Minn. Stat. § 209.10, subd. 4, applies to an appeal of an election contest involving a statewide office. See Minn. Stat. § 209.09, subd. 2 ("section 209.10, subd. 4, applies to a contest regarding a statewide office. . ."). Subdivison 4 of § 209.10 provides for expedited appeals. The deadline for the appeal is ten days after the "decision" (not entry of judgment) of the election contest court. Id. The record on appeal must be certified and filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen days after the service of notice of appeal. Id. The appeal "takes precedence over all matters for the Supreme Court." Id.
And there’s another full page of relevant state statutes being cited to buttress the case for expedition, as well as examples of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s own prior rulings — which were quite speedy — in this recount situation.
Meanwhile, the alert Chris Steller of the Minnesota Independent cites a piece from the Overruled blog which mentions that back in February of 2006, Bogus Ben Ginsberg –whose name is nowhere to be found on either of the two appeal documents submitted by the Coleman team (in other words, he’s still not representing Norm in court, only in the hallway) — was telling an audience at the Duke Law School that "Just like, really, with the Voting Rights Act, Republicans have some fundamental philosophical difficulties with the whole notion of Equal Protection." Which is hilarious, because Ginsberg’s been yammering about "equal protection" like a parrot on speed ever since he was hauled into town to take over yakking duties from Fritz Knaak.
12 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Advanced search
Not to sound biased against Coleman or in favor of Franken or anything, but that seems to be a well reasoned and presented arguement.
After trying to wade through Normie’s appeal docs yesterday, this was almost a pleasure. If that’s the best that Coleman’s team can do with their case compared to this filing, it doesn’t surprise me that Coleman is getting his backside handed to him – setting aside the fact that his case is pure B.S. anyway, I mean.
Of course, the fact that his case is B.S. may be why his legal team’s filings are so pathetic.
I think you’re right about that.
When you’ve got the law on your side, pound on the law. That’s what Franken’s legal squad is doing. When the law’s on the other guy’s side, make a lot of noise. That’s what Coleman’s legal squad is doing.
It’s rather telling when a simple Motion to Expedite is better grounded in relevant case law than two appeal filings, isn’t it?
Oh, and Normie of course is now saying Whoa Nellie! From The UpTake’s live blog this morning:
You forgot the part where Normie said – “and we aren’t trying to delay for the sake of grauitous delaying. We really Really REALLY need the extra time evenifIcan’ttellyouwhy.”
Do we really have to have oral arguments? Can’t the MN Supreme Court just examine the existing record and rule? It just freaking happened.
They could, but they most likely won’t as they don’t want to give Norm anything — ANYTHING — that he could use to justify a stay from Strip-search Sammy Alito.
Every morning, I wake up to expect a news story, telling me that this has all been a public relations stunt, and it never happened. But every day I am disappointed. This is ridiculous, undemocratic and perverted.
as I said downstairs pw, I love your updates and look forward to following your posts every day
I will miss your diligence when we finally do seat franken and hope you find another cause for us to read
Thanks for the update!
weren’t oral arguments presented at the Court of Appeals level? Are there any new issues presented?
on edit: I seem to recall watching oral arguments presented wrt to this case *somewhere*…
Will Gov. Pawlenty, (pawlenty of Republican grinning, lying and sandbagging) sign the certificate after the MN Supremes ream Coleman? Or will Pawlenty help to push this to the Federal Supreme Republicans?
Thanks for keeping this on the front burner here. I suspect a lot of Senate business is being slow-walked in order to delay it until Franken gets there. Nominations for federal judgeships and the likes of Dawn Johnsen among them.
We really need to move on those before Souter or someone else leaves the Supreme Court. Souter has not hired law clerks for the October Term, meaning he’s missed the typical market timing for such hires, suggesting he won’t need them.