The Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lower court ruling in the hotly contested Senate race between Democrat and comedian Al Franken and his Republican opponent Norm Coleman.
Their ruling rejected claims by the challenger that inconsistent election practices and flawed decisions by lower courts had cost him the election.
“Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled [under Minnesota law] to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota,” the court wrote.
Franken would give Democrats in the Senate a potential 60-seat, filibuster-proof super majority.
UPDATE BY BRENDAN: Of course, a “filibuster-proof” majority doesn’t necessarily mean as much as is popularly supposed, given that the Senate is made up of 100 mini-presidents (in their own minds, anyway) who generally cannot be “whipped” into towing the party line to the same extent that’s possible with House members. The difference between 59 senators and 60 senators is not nearly as significant as, say, the difference between or 49 and 50 (if you’ve got the vice president) or 50 and 51 (if you don’t), when the speakership, chairmanships, and basic control of the chamber’s procedures are at stake.
Nevertheless, Franken’s now-declared victory — which has been an inevitability for some months; it’s pretty clearly been a matter of how and when, not if, he’d be seated — will give the Democrats one additional reliable vote on cap-and-trade, health care, and various other key initiatives. His vote isn’t magical, but it is important.
Anyway, Nate Silver has an analysis of what comes next. The big questions are: 1) Will ex-Senator Coleman now concede? 2) If he doesn’t, will Governor Pawlenty nevertheless certify Senator-elect Franken as the winner? 3) If he doesn’t, will the Senate Democrats try to seat Franken anyway? And 4) If the Dems try that, will it work?
UPDATE 2 BY DAVID K: Coleman has conceded.
Coleman’s concession is basically like Al Gore’s concession… he waited until the last possible moment, when his last realistic chance at victory is gone, and then he finally gives up. Neither noble nor ignoble, in my mind.
Still puts him one step ahead of Dino Rossi on the sore-loser scumbag scale. 🙂
Yet another election stolen by the Democrats. Coleman was leading after the intial count, the first recount, and then magically all these votes for franken started to appear.
Seriously, isn’t there anyone on the Left ashamed at the long history of electoral fraud?
*yawn*
Do you have any proof that the election was stolen gahrie? How exactly did the Democrats stealt he election? What mechanisms did they ahve to get it done. I mean its not like Coleman’s brother was governor of the state, or his campaign manager was Secretary of State.
You basically make an absurd statement as fact and then ask a question without providing a basis for it to be true. You might as well say “Isn’t there anyone on the Left ashamed at the long history of clubbing baby seals.” Plus I really dont’ think the Right should be lecturing anyone on stealing elections. That and its hard to take you seriously when you think that climate change is some vast left wing conspiracy (a conspiracy whose scale would be so massive it would likely go down as the greatest collabrative endeavour in all of human history).
1) I refer you to the Powerline blog for a list of the shennigans that local democratic activists took part in.
2) I cite the following as evidence of Democratic electoral fraud:
A) Tamany Hall
B) Practically every single election in Chicago, especially as perpetrated by the Daly family
C) the elections of both JFK and LBJ
D) The attempt to steal the first election of Pres. Bush.
E) The rampant electoral fraud in Washington State by Democrats
F) The continued support by the Democrats for ACORN, despite repeated and proven electoral and registration fraud.
3) One day even you are going to recognize the intellectual, economic and scientific fraud that Gore and his cabal have foisted on us in an attempt to make millions (and billions) while at the same time seizing control of the American economy.
Steal the election of President Bush? Are you kidding? And you REALLY shouldn’t have brought up E) given that the actual reality in Washington is not one of Election fraud but a blatant misunderstanding of basic statistics and elections by rabid GOP’ers.
Finally the idea that the overwhelming scientific evidence that backs up global climate change (and man’s impact on it) is somehow a conspiracy by Al Gore is such a ludicrous and ridiculous statement it makes UFO conspiracy nuts look SANE. By spouting that far right talking point you have basically relegated yourself to the same catagory of believability as the 9/11 truthers. But hey, have fun with your tinfoil hats trying to escape from “the Man”.
Elections aren’t about statistics…they are about counting the ACTUAL VOTES.
A simply majority is more significant than a supermajority, but 60 is the magic number for a very good reason – the ability to close debate is HUGE in terms of “control of the chamber’s procedures.” It’s not surprising that Franken and the Democrats are downplaying the significance of reaching a supermajority, however. Now that the GOP has lost control of the last lever of real power that it had, it will be that much more difficult for the Democrats to blame all the fiscal and economic problems on Bush (not that they won’t try, of course, but that excuse loses all credibility when your party has cornered the market, so to speak). And Senators don’t necessarily tow the party line alright – counting the two GOP Senators from Maine, the Democrats may well have 62 votes for their key initiatives. Democrats also no longer need to play parliamentary games like using reconciliation bills, adding items to legislation to lure GOP votes, etc., and instead will be able to shove their legislative agenda down the throats of the minority (not that the GOP wouldn’t do the same if it had the opportunity).
But Joe, unlike 49 vs. 50 or 50 vs. 51, the added ability to “control of the chamber’s procedures” granted by having 60 votes is only true on a bill-by-bill basis. It’s not a matter of how the chamber is organized — it’s a matter of how the votes line up. Only if every single Democrat votes the leadership’s way on a given issue do they have a “supermajority” on that issue.
The notion that the 60 is a “magic number,” as shallow MSM political “analysis” tends to claim, makes assumptions that are, to borrow and butcher some ConLaw terminology, are both overinclusive and underinclusive. On the one hand, as you point out, the two GOP senators from Maine side with the Democrats often enough that they already had a “supermajority” on some issues. On the other hand, enough Dem senators will defect on enough issues that they still won’t have a “supermajority” on a lot of things.
Franken’s victory has perhaps increased their ability to “control of the chamber’s procedures” from, oh I don’t know, 25% of the time to 40% of the time, or something like that. I just made those numbers up, but the point is, it isn’t partisan “downplaying” — but rather, a recognition of reality — to note that Franken is simply one additional vote whose presence will make it easier to reach 60 votes, NOT a game-changing vote that will move them from a situation where they can never (or almost never) reach 60, to one where they can suddenly always (or almost always) reach it. That simply is not the nature of the Senate. Individual senators are far too independent (and self-interested) to few them in pure bean-counting terms, assuming that the votes on every issue will line up the same way. They won’t.
In fact, I imagine there will be precious few issues where the Dems will have 60 with Franken where they wouldn’t have had 60 without him (i.e., where they wouldn’t have been able to cajole one of the Maineiacs or some other wishy-woshy Repub to come on board). On any issue where the GOP is uncompromisingly lockstep against them, there are likely to be a couple of Dem defectors. Conversely, on any issue where the Dems are lockstep in support, there are likely to be a couple of GOP defectors. There will be some exceptions, but they’ll be relatively rare, particularly on major policy matters, methinks. Such is the nature of the divided loyalties of Republican senators in blue states and Democratic senators in red states. By far, the biggest factors in determining whether a given bill passes the Senate will continue to be: 1) Obama’s popularity; 2) the popularity of the policy in question; and 3) inside political baseball and horse-trading. Franken’s seating is #4 at best.
Also, note that due to health issues, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd don’t come for many votes (and getting them to the floor is an effort), so really, the Dems have 58 votes on any given issue. (Thanks, Marc Ambinder!)
And let me just say that this whole “Dude, it was FRAUD!! FRAUD!!!!!” chorus is getting really old and sore loser-ish. Yes, Coleman was ahead, but that’s why you recount the votes in a recount – to see if the result is accurate! A recount in which the person ahead always won would be very suspect. It would probably happen in a majority of cases, but not in all cases.
Indeed, B. Minich — it is a distressing yet obvious fact that both sides’ partisans now assume that every close election they lose is presumptively fraudulent — and if the apparent result “flipped” due to a recount, that presumption is almost unrebuttable. This is terrible for our democracy, as it erodes confidence in our electoral system for no good reason (the arguments advanced in favor of the “FRAUD!!!!” theory are 99% pure electoral ignorance, willful artisan blindness or intellectual dishonesty). But alas, it is what the 2000 election hath wrought.
This election, like Florida 2000 and Washington 2004 before it, was a statistical tie. Nobody stole it. If Coleman had come out ahead, he would have been the legitimate winner. Instead, Franken came out ahead; he’s the legitimate winner. Period. There is no convincing evidence of “fraud.” There are only unfounded, ideologically fueled accusations, assumptions and insinuations of “fraud,” bolstered by the aforementioned fallacious notion that fraud should be PRESUMED when an election is close and my guy loses, particularly when he was ahead at some previous point.
Meanwhile, Coleman’s legal stance exposed the fraudulence of any claim that the Republicans have some moral superiority when it comes to election-law enforcement issues. He did a complete 180 when he fell behind, from wanting to “enforce the rules” and not count any extra votes, to an Al Gore-like “count every vote, rules be damned!” stance. It was a totally craven and unprincipled reversal, based on nothing but a desire to win. Franken made the same switch in reverse, of course. I’m not saying the Republicans are any worse that the Democrats on this count — just that they aren’t any better, either. There has been this notion floating around that Republicans are the ones who support enforcing election laws as written, while Democrats support changing them after-the-fact to alter outcomes. This election conclusively disproved that notion. Norm Coleman was asking for blatant judicial activism to reverse the result. Which, again, is totally understandable — Franken would’ve done the same thing. But there is no moral high ground in this sort of battle. Both sides are just trying to win, and that’s all.
gahrie, does this mean that I can bring up the Grant administration when we discuss blatant corruption and disastrous oversight in regard to Republican administrations? Or did you actually mean for your argument to be completely ridiculous?
Of course a supermajority exists on a bill-by-bill basis, Brendan. I’m certainly not saying that Democrats would never have been able to reach 60 votes without Franken whereas now it’s a lock. Rather, my point is that needing only the votes of your OWN party to invoke cloture is VERY significant and quite different from needing to lure members of the other party to your side in terms of what you can accomplish and how much you need to compromise. The power of the minority party in the Senate is fundamental – the 60-vote magic number is the underlying mechanism behind the Constitutional intent of the Senate to provide a check on the House. Most of the time, as you say, it may not matter. But those “precious few issues” where it DOES matter are hardly inconsequential, and perhaps not as infrequent as you think. Republicans had previously maintained filibusters on issues ranging from the Employee Free Choice Bill that would allow unions to bypass secret-ballot elections, to the Prescription Drug Bill that would allow DHHS to negotiate with drug cos. the prices of drugs covered under Medicare Part D. Moreover, if you follow the Senate, you realize pretty quickly that final vote tallies are misleading and often don’t tell you much about how close things really are because once you whip 60 votes (which is much easier when you don’t have to go across the aisle), many more Senators will often break for a bill for any number of reasons (e.g., to add modifications). Self-interest cuts both ways – many a Senator can be persuaded to vote a particular way if their vote was decisive.
Okay, fair enough.
However, on EFCB, for instance, the conventional wisdom has been that it’s dead in the water *even though* the Dems have 60. After all, as I said in my initial post, it’s been clear for months that Franken would ultimately be declared the winner, so ever since Specter switched, it’s been common knowledge that the Dems would get to 60. To (mis)use some Wall Street terminology, the Democratic supermajority is already “priced into” the prevailing conventional wisdom in D.C. by the political punditry “market” in terms of how to the Dems’ prospect of passing Obama’s agenda is assessed. It’s not like we woke up this morning and suddenly Card Check or Cap & Trade is going to pass. Whatever we thought about their chances 48 hours ago still holds true now.
Honestly, I wish we still had the “old school” filibuster system. Where even one Senator could stop something, presuming they could manage to actually stay on their feet. I dislike paper filibusters. (Kind of like the lame ass paper blockades the British used in mucking up US shipping during the Napoleonic wars.) As a general rule you probably need more votes to get something through. And the Senate these days has to deal with more than ever before. So I don’t see the paper filibuster ever going away. But it made a lot more sense. It demanded debate.