If the Senate has to decide the Minnesota Senate Race, they should call a revote

[liberalpragmatist]

According to the Constitution, the Senate is the ultimate judge of its membership. If there is a dispute between the Franken and Coleman camps in Minnesota, the Senate can legally decide who to seat.

It seems very possible that Coleman will be leading by a few votes but that the difference could be made up by 133 missing votes in Minneapolis that would give the seat to Franken.

If that happens, the Senate can (1) seat Coleman, (2) seat Franken, or (3) call a vacancy and a new election.

Option 2 would be the one most of us would like. But it would likely invite a filibuster, probably get moderate Dem defections and earn a wave of bad press and publicity.

Instead, they should take Option 3, which is what was done in a 1974 New Hampshire Senate race that went into two recounts. They should declare the seat vacant and require a revote. The GOP would scream bloody-murder, but it's a reasonable solution on the merits: the margin is so close that the true winner may never be known.

It does leave open the possibility of a Coleman win, but I think Franken's odds in a revote are pretty good. Remember that there was a third-party candidate, Dean Barkley, who took 15% of the vote. Most of his votes will go to Franken. Also, if there's a revote held in the spring, that will hopefully be in the midst of an Obama honeymoon and big fights on health care, infrastructure and energy. I would think Franken's odds would be quite good under those circumstances.

[stray cat]

1. Who pays for the revote?

[MercutioATC]

2. Noooo!

Franken probably rode Obama's coattails to some extent. Without Obama on the ballot, I don't know if as many Dems would show up for a revote.

[pscot]

3. Can the matter be philibustered?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about a 60 vote majority.

[Occam Bandage]

5. I believe so. Filibusters are part of the Senate's rules of order, not the Constitution. nt

[pscot]

17. This seems to be the controling language

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business", Article 1, section 4. Nothing there about sixty votes or philibusters. I doubt Senate rule trump the Constitution. A simple majority should suffice.

[tritsofme]

18. You are touting the same philosophy as Republicans in the "nuclear option" debate.

Just FYI.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Senate rules do not "trump" the Constitution, they build upon it while not contradicting it.

The Senate requires a 60-vote majority to close debate on a motion. We are not going to change that.

[frogcycle]

4. What a revoting development this is!

Sufferin' succotash!

[MarjorieG]

6. What about reappraising the absentees to better break a tie?

[Occam Bandage]

7. As a DFLer, I believe Franken would lose it handily.

Still, I think a revote is the best idea. We might win it, and either way it's better to ensure the people's voices are clearly heard than to sacrifice democracy for partisan advantage.

[camera obscura]

8. I agree, the Repubs would have the turnout advantage & the recount may have turned people against Al

But I suppose it would be for the best. I hope it would happen sooner rather than being stretched out like the GA runoff.

[liberalpragmatist]

9. Why do you think Franken would lose?

Is it because of the perception that Coleman "won", combined with energized Republicans and the fact that Franken was never that popular with the Minnesota electorate to begin with?

I figure Franken would at least have even odds, given that most of Barkley's voters would have voted for Franken.

(Personally, I think the DFL needs to strike a deal with the IP where they enact Instant-Runoff Voting in Minnesota; it would probably win the IP some seats, but overall, Dems would probably benefit, since several major races have been cost by IP crossover votes.)

[Occam Bandage]

13. Yes.

I think, first of all, that counting on the Barkley voters is futile. Barkley voters are ones who dislike Coleman, but yet who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Franken. They might have preferred Franken to Coleman marginally, but they aren't the type to run out and vote for Franken in a low-turnout special election.

Secondly, Coleman is far, far more popular among Republicans than Franken is among Dems. Coleman won the caucus delegates unanimously at the convention, whereas Franken only got 62% (even though his only opponent by that point was Kucinichesque professor Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, who barely even campaigned.) In the September primary (which is only a beauty pageant for all races but the state legislature primaries), Coleman carried 92% of the vote. Franken, again, scored in the low sixties, despite only sharing the ballot with unknown vanity candidates. Republicans will turn out in force, especially given their unanimous perception that Coleman won and Franken is trying to steal it. Democrats? Probably not.

Finally, Franken is losing independents with every day that the numbers show Coleman in the lead. Minnesota independents have a very low tolerance for bullshit, and if Coleman and Franken have another round of advertising, Coleman's message is this: "I won. The Secretary of State's numbers say I won. We canvassed the polls. I won that. Franken made a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo challenges about absentee ballots. I won those. We did a huge, expensive recount. I won that, too. Franken went back to the courts. I won that. Franken went to the Senate. Senate Democrats said, 'yeah, Coleman won, but he's a Republican, so let's throw it out,' and now it's been months where Minnesota's been missing its voice. Franken's hurting Minnesota with his endless, egocentric challenges and legal tricks. Let's put an end to Franken's games once and for all, so Minnesota can have the principled, experienced, serious leadership it needs."

It's a message that's going to resonate. Franken has to win this in the challenges and courts, and then spend the next six years rehabilitating his image.

[dflprincess]

15. As a DFLer who actually lives in Minnesota, I think the vote would be very close

and the Barkley voters would split nearly 50-50. Though there was some indication that Barkley did more damage to Franken.

[Occam Bandage]

19. I do. My profile is out of date.

The Barkley voters aren't splitting, nor are they going for Franken 60-40. They're not showing up.

[dflprincess]

21. I was talking about the exit poll taken on election day

Franken would have gained more votes from Barkely voters on November 4. A poll reported on either channel 11 or channel 5 last night indicated that very little would change now if people were voting today.

[Bjorn Against]

10. Under MN law that would allow Pawlenty to appoint someone until the next election.

If I am not mistaken that would mean the election would be held in November 2009, and the term would last until 2014. In such a situation however it is not clear that Franken would be the DFL candidate, Coleman would be more likely to be the Republican candidate but even that is not certain. Other candidates could give them a primary challenge, and I would think that it would be very likely that someone would give Franken a serious challenge. And don't count on the Independence Party not running a candidate either, this would not be a runoff and any third party could run someone for the seat. I do not know if Pawlenty would be able to appoint Coleman to the one year position before the special election under the law, but if he can't then I would predict that neither Coleman or Franken will be on the 2009 ballot.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. Hm. Is it?

You could be right, although I know in '74, the Senate called for a revote in New Hampshire. Could they do that here too, or would they have to defer to Minnesota vacancy law?

[Bjorn Against]

12. I don't know whether or not the Senate could overrule MN law...

But even if they could overrule MN law I find it unlikely that they would. There are a lot of Senators who are very sensitive to state's rights issues, and I don't see them wanting to overrule a state's elections laws. I don't know much about New Hampshire election law, but I would presume it is different than Minnesota's. I really don't think the Senate will move on this case unless things really drag out a long time in the courts. I think the absentees that shouldn't have been rejected will be counted without the Senate getting involved, and I would also expect that if the missing ballots from Minneapolis will either be found or the election day totals will be taken and the votes will still be counted once at least. When this happens Franken needs to hope it puts him over the top because those votes represent the last of his legal options and if they don't push him over the top he loses. If they do push him over the top I would expect Coleman to sue, I don't think the Senate is going to want to intervene however as Coleman's legal options will be slim and whoever wins after all the ballots are counted will likely remain the winner.

[Pab Sungenis]

14. In '74, the Senate didn't call for a re-vote.

They declared the seat vacant, as if the elected Senator had died or resigned. NH election law kicked in at that point.

That's what would happen in this case: Senate declares the seat vacant, Pawlenty appoints a placeholder (may even nominate himself) and then it's off for a special election in November 2009.

[Hokie]

16. No, if Franken is certified by the Minnesota SoS he should be seated

Likewise, Coleman. Unless the Republican Minnesota Supreme Court pulls a stunt and Coleman wins when known votesa are left onthe table the person certified by SoS Ritchie should be seated.