Franken-Coleman Recount Update, 01/08/09: How Far Will It Go?

It\’s now going to a three-judge panel, folks!

Now that Norm’s decided to blow another couple million bucks on his lawyers, the big question is:  How far will it go?  Will Norm be able to take this all the way to the conservative-controlled US Supreme Court, should the three-judge contest panel not give him the answer the national Republican leadership wants to hear?   An FDL commenter, Sara, believes that Norm won’t be able to take this to the Federal level at all:

 You have to begin with the Statute Law — in this contest, the party bringing the suit has the burden of proof. What the court will and can order would depend on whether Coleman comes in with proof of his claims sufficent to cause the court to issue an order. The court could, for instance, require bond for any expenses, and by law the loser pays all court costs.

Ironically, the whole Minnesota Recount system and statute law is based on the foundation of the decisions in the MN Governor’s recount case in 1962-63, Anderson V. Rolvaag. That decision is actually addressed in Bush v. Gore to the argument that State Election Law prevails in State Elections. The court in 2000 had to argue around Anderson v. Rolvaag on the grounds that the Constitution set a deadline for Flordia’s vote count — the date of the Electorial College meeting. That exception would not apply to Minnesota, as we have no deadlines other than requirements as to when trials have to begin in a Contest. So in essence Bush v. Gore actually recognized Anderson v. Rolvaag as the lead precident, the settled law. So no, I don’t predict it will successfully get into Federal Court. In ‘63 the case went through the Federal Courts — the decision Anderson v. Rolvaag was written by the 8th Circuit Appeals Court, and affirmed by the Warren Supreme Court. So given this — I don’t think the Feds will even look at the case.

Meanwhile, local blogger Centristy debunks Norm’s "duplicate voting" allegation (h/t REW at Blog of the Moderate Left).

By the way, remember the Wall Street Journal’s editors’ bizarre smear launched against the State Canvassing Board?  The one I referenced in my update yesterday?  That turkey stank so badly, even the far-right dudes at Powerline, a local right-wing blog, had to protest it (h/t Keith Pickering):

The Board of Canvassers that was convened to preside over the recount and rule on challenged ballots conducted itself honorably under difficult circumstances. … I have known Chief Justice Magnuson professionally more than 25 years. Justice Anderson was my law school classmate and is a friend. In my view, they are two of the best judges serving in the Minnesota courts. Period.

There was no noticeable partisan division among the board. Minnesotans are justifiably proud of the transparency and fairness of their work. I reject any imputation of misconduct to the board such as is implicit in the Journal editorial.

That tells you how deeply the WSJ’s trogdolytes in the editorial offices stepped in it, when their own fellow travelers have to smack them around.