Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What About a ‘Do-Over’ in Minnesota? 71% of Republicans want to redo election

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:15 PM
Original message
What About a ‘Do-Over’ in Minnesota? 71% of Republicans want to redo election
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1&docID=new...

March 6, 2009 – 1:55 a.m.
What About a ‘Do-Over’ in Minnesota?
By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff
A proposal to conduct a re-vote in Minnesota’s deadlocked Senate race has stirred up some strong opinions.

Republican Norm Coleman and his attorneys have suggested the state consider re-doing the Nov. 4 election because of fundamental flaws in the way the ballots have been counted.

Coleman challenged the Jan. 5 recount results, which gave Democrat Al Franken a 225-vote lead out of 2.9 million cast. The ensuing trial, called an “election contest,” is now in its sixth week.

With an end to the four-month recount and trial still weeks away, the prospect of a do-over has generated heated debate among residents and political observers.

A Rasmussen poll released Thursday shows Minnesota voters divided over the idea, with 46 percent up for voting again, and 44 percent opposing the proposal. Support breaks largely along party lines — 71 percent of Republicans favor the idea and 69 percent of Democrats are against it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
theoldman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deal, cried the loser.
We should have redone the election in Florida back in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. And rerun Ohio 2004 with paper ballots and international observers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deal
Can we do the 2000 Election over as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. I got an idea ...

Let's just go balls out absurd with this and first have a vote on whether Minnesota should have a re-vote. That way we can positively solidify the notion that we're a nation of complete idiots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Of course Republicans are for it
for whatever reason, they usually do better in special elections in Minnesota (though those are elections for the state legislature). On the other hand, people may be so fed up with Republican behavior both in the Franken/Coleman case and with the way they're obstructing Obama that Al would really win big.

There is no provision in Minnesota law for a "redo" and,like a letter in today's paper said "Be a man Norm and accept what the court decides."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. I think that they would be really surprised at just how many angry
DFLers there are - we would be out there in droves. It might have been close before but the more they drag this out the angrier we get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. Of course they do - they lost
If my guy had lost and I was an asshole, I'd want a do-over too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. I want to re-run the 2005 Stanley Cup
Oilers should have won.

Then there's the 1980 presidential election...the Franco-Prussian War...The Peloponesian War...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. That would be a violation of the 14th amendment
Franken won and having a redo now with no law for it in place before the November 4th election would be unequal treatment of Franken, thus violatuing hhis 14th amendment rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
9. Why does Coleman, an aspiring lawmaker, have no regard for Minnesota election law?

http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/03/7116/m...

By Eric Black | Published Tue, Mar 3 2009 3:00 pm

I mentioned in this morning's post (thanks, by the way, for the excellent discussion thread) that Minnesota does have laws on the books mandating a special election in case of a Senate vacancy. Still true, but upon a careful reading, under the expert assistance of law Professor Guy Uriel-Charles, an election-law specialist of the statute that defines vacancies, it appears that the existing law holds little potential for a solution to the current confusion. Basically, it's because the law defines a vacancy as something that comes about through eight specific ways, and none of them seem to describe any likely outcome of our current dilemma. Read it for yourself, really, it's very straightforward. The eight ways to get a vacancy are:

(1) the death of the incumbent;

(2) the incumbent's resignation;

(3) the incumbent's removal;

(4) the incumbent's ceasing to be an inhabitant of the state;

(5) the incumbent's conviction of any infamous crime, or of any offense involving a violation of the official oath;

(6) the incumbent's refusal or neglect to take the oath of office;

(7) the decision of a competent tribunal declaring the incumbent's election or appointment void;

(8) the death of the person elected or appointed to fill a vacancy, or for a full term, before the person qualifies, or before the time when by law the person should enter upon the duties of the office, in which case the vacancy shall be deemed to take place at the time when the term of office would have begun had the person lived.

Note the following:

The law does not provide for a situation in which the election officials and the courts are unable to decide who won the election.

Vacancy categories 1-7 all require there to first be an incumbent. In the current situation, there is no incumbent. Category 8 requires there to be a person elected or appointed to the office who dies before taking office. In the current case, there is no such person.

Perhaps you are taking a second look at reason No. 7. It seems at first glance to suggest, consistent with Team Coleman's argument, that the three-judge election-contest panel could decide to throw out the election (which would create a vacancy, which would trigger a temporary appointment, followed by a special election in November to fill the remainder of the term). To tell you the truth, I stuck on that one myself, which is why I didn't dismiss this possibility in the previous post.

But talking it over with Professor Charles, he pointed out two things: Even No. 7 presumes that an incumbent has already been elected. And the reference to a "competent tribunal" means a body that has the authority to void an election.

The contest panel has authority to do only one thing: And that is to decide "which party to the contest received the highest number of votes legally cast at the election and is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election."

This is exactly the place that state law could have given the contest panel authority to void the election if, for example, it felt it could not ascertain which party got the most legally cast votes. But the law didn't do so.

Charles believes the idea of a new election under different circumstances would not be far-fetched. But in this case, because the state law provides such a clear limit on the power of the contest panel, and because we are dealing here with a Senate seat and the Constitution invests the Senate itself with final authority to judge the election, he believes it is highly unlkely that the three judges will void the result or call for a new election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
10. 1. Don't believe Rasmussen (see below). 2. Does Norm want a re-vote with or without the third
candidate - Dean Barkley?

Three candidates ran. Here is what Rasmussen said six days before the election - Coleman leading and Barkely had 14%.

"Wednesday, October 29, 2008
With the election just six days away, incumbent Republican Norm Coleman is back in front of Democratic challenger Al Franken – with his biggest lead since April -- in the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota.

Coming off what many view as his strongest debate performance of the campaign last Thursday, Coleman leads Franken 43% to 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state.

Independent candidate Dean Barkley is favored by 14%. Four percent (4%) remain undecided. snipped "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics...

If they hold another election - many Barkley votes would go to Franken, less to Coleman.

Minnesota is doing everything according to the law. Colemans' lawyers are desperate - they need Coleman for Republican dirty work as they have for the last six years.

They are desperate, folks.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. Hey repiglicans... YOU LOST! Suck it up and get the fuck over it...
Isn't that what *you* told *us* when Gore got fucked in 2000?

FUCK YOU, YOU LOST!!




Assholes...

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. Just like the "do over" we got in 2000?
HA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC