Sun editorial:

Time to step aside

Republican Coleman should cede Minnesota Senate race to Democrat Franken

Thursday, April 16, 2009 | 2:05 a.m.

More than five months have passed since Democrat Al Franken challenged incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman in Minnesota’s November general election. The result was a nail-biter so close it triggered an automatic recount of 2.9 million ballots.

It took until early January to complete the recount, with the result showing Franken 225 votes ahead. Coleman, as was his right, challenged the recount in a lawsuit.

A three-judge panel ruled unanimously Monday that Franken won, with his lead growing to 312 votes.

In the best of circumstances, a person who constantly comes up short in a contest will eventually see the writing on the wall and turn gracious in defeat. But Coleman, who indicated he will appeal the panel’s ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court, isn’t being gracious.

Coleman should realize by now that he has no chance of retaining the seat. All he can hope to accomplish is to continue to block Franken from taking his place for a longer period of time.

At this critical time, Democrats need every vote they can get to advance President Barack Obama’s agenda of reforms in education, health care, energy and the economy. Minnesota also cannot afford weakened representation in Congress.

As The New York Times reported last week, the inability of the state to fill its Senate vacancy has proved burdensome for Minnesota’s other senator, Democrat Amy Klobuchar. Requests from her constituents — from hunting down missing Social Security checks to solving disputes over veterans’ benefits — have skyrocketed, her phone banks have clogged up and her meetings with advocacy groups have increased by 30 percent. She cannot possibly be as effective as other senators while carrying such a heavy workload.

If Coleman had Minnesota’s best interests at heart, he would step aside so the state can regain equal representation in the Senate and fully participate in plans to help the economy recover. The longer he persists in his charade, the more he hurts his own state.

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

By POWERPLAY

4/16/09 at 2:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yes minnesota should have two seated senators, but if al franken is one of them then minnesota deserves the representation that these wackjob gives them.
By DouglasDemocrat

4/16/09 at 6:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

The GOP has all but admitted that this is just a stall tactic to keep another Democrat out of the Senate. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas has threatened to filibuster any attempt to seat Franken until all of Coleman's appeals have been exhausted (including any federal appeals), a process that could conceivably take YEARS.
Once the Minnesota Supreme Court hands down their ruling, Governor Pawlenty should do the right thing and issue the certificate of election to Senator-elect Franken.
By neiman1

4/16/09 at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yes, Coleman should give up. It doesn't matter that different rules on which ballots to count were used in different counties. He should give up.

Once a judge makes a ruling the parties have NO RIGHT to appeal it to another court. What would we be if anyone had that right?
By getalife

4/16/09 at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Does this mean we get to protest and say he "stole" this election? By the way, for those of you offended by Fox news, you should know this, Al Franken is what you should be offended by. Idiot Al can vote on laws, Fox can only opine.

So let me get this straight, when Dirty Harry said that Sen. Burress wouldn't be seated, he was thinking clearly and yet when Sen. Cornyn said basically the same thing he is obstructionist. WOW. Doug, have you been sneaking peyote?
By DouglasDemocrat

4/16/09 at 12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

getalife, the difference is that Franken has been declared the winner of the election...TWICE (once after the automatic recount, and again after the hearing as mandated under Minnesota law). He is for all intents and purposes the Senator-elect under Minnesota law.

The reason Burress was blocked by Senator Reid was that there were allegations of impropriety about the appointer (Ol' Gov. Blago) and questions of whether Burress traded favors with Blago for the appointment.

Have you followed the Coleman contest? I have - he had no case, and tried to get illegal votes counted for him.

And neiman, Coleman has had his legal appeals. He will get a hearing before the Minnesota Supreme Court, which he will lose because he can't prove that he can overcome Franken's lead. But he has no federal case (Bush v. Gore cannot be used because the Supreme Court said it does not set precedent), and to claim that we should deprive Minnesota of their second Senator for years and years just so federal courts can dismiss a frivolous action is pure political game-playing.

If the roles were reversed, how many of you would be screaming that Franken should concede?
By neiman1

4/16/09 at 3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

To Douglas, I believe you have the same one way glass your looking through that you accuse others of having.

harry Reid blocked Burress because of allegations of impropriety are. I think allegations that different counties used different criteria to select which ballots to count might be an allegation of impropriety.

You say Coleman has no federal case because one decision was said not to set a precedent but the Bush case had no precedent either. The federal system may still review any federal laws or rights that may have been violated.

I understand the desire to have the man seated but I just wanted to point out we all see things from our own perspective, including you. Have a good day.
By DouglasDemocrat

4/16/09 at 4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

"The federal system may still review any federal laws or rights that may have been violated."

Except that federal courts have consistently stated that state law governs in state elections, even in state elections for federal offices. Look it up.
By DouglasDemocrat

4/16/09 at 5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

For your consumption:

"Reading the ruling [of Bush v. Gore] narrowly to require application of equal standards for ballots counted in state-mandated recounts, Coleman should lose. The problems Coleman points to with the alleged counting of certain illegal absentee ballots occurred BEFORE the recount; both the canvassing board and the court in the election contest appear to have achieved great uniformity in the treatment of similar problematic ballots. And certainly nothing in Bush v. Gore requires the counting of ballots that don't actually comply with the election statutes. If anything, counting such ballots could raise equal-protection problems." - Richard L. Hasen, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question