| The big problem is that under Minnesota law the Minnesota Secretary of State cannot issue an election certification under the appeal process is finished.
That law has delayed the seating of Minnesota's second senator and has potentially jeopardized several close votes in the U.S. Senate on our new President's initiatives in dealing with our national economic crisis.
Now that newly appointed Senator Burris is in trouble, it becomes more crucial to get Al Franken seated in the U.S. Senate as the rightful winner of the Minnesota Senate election.
In recent days, the Coleman lawyers seem to be moving to the position, at least from a public relations point of view, that they are going to challenge the integrity of the process and create further delay by pushing for a redo election.
A few observations from my watching of the proceedings:
1. It has become abundantly clear that one of Coleman's primary objectives is to delay the seating of another Democratic senator in the U.S. Senate. If the trial continues at the current pace, then it is likely to be over sometime in early summer. The Coleman camp is putting on election officials from almost every county in the state (Minnesota has 87 counties) and a few city officials too.
2. The Franken lawyers are much sharper than the Coleman lawyers. Their cross examination questions are crisp and relevant. Their arguments on the motions are much more convincing.
3. Interestingly, the parties are in an unusual posture of arguing the opposite of what is using argued in that the Democrat is arguing "strict interpretation" of the law to keep out "illegally" cast absentee ballots and the Republican is arguing a broader interpretation to allow the count absentee ballots that might have been improper, but not intentionally improper.
4. No arguments by either party of voter fraud.
5. Minnesota seems to have much stricter laws than NH regarding the casting of an absentee ballot including the need to have a registered Minnesota voter to witness the signing of the ballot by the voter.
As I understand New Hampshire law, I don't think we would have to go through this delay in certification. New Hampshire law (RSA 665:16), as I read it, allows the certification of the election after the decision of the Ballot Law Commission and recognizes the constitutional provisions granting exclusive authority in Congress to make the ultimate decision.
In the meantime, Minnesota residents are disenfrancised from having a second Senator, President Obama must cowtow to the Repubican moderate Senators to pass his legislation, and only the attorneys are winning. My prediction is that the U.S. Senate will have to become involved soon. |
