A Few witnesses and then the big set-to yesterday afternoon in Election Contest Court.
Franken leads +249 (last change, 2/10= +24)
The lawyers argue. Elias shows why he is great at election law.
The Court makes a fateful change in schedule.
A rehash of events just past the fold.......
(Folks I want to apologize for today's effort. I've discovered why the lawyers are working in teams and the UpTake is working in a team. I hit a wall last night and had to get some serious sleep and have the early shift this morning. So this diary is more quotes than usual but I hope it gives you a flavor of yesterday and the hopes growing that this could resolve. Thank you UpTake bloggers!)
1) Election Contest Court- Episode XXII A Great Debate
ECC opened with Dakota County auditor Kevin Doyle winding up his testimony. They switched to Plymouth city elections director Sandra Engdahl. (Hennepin Co. Plymouth a western, 2nd ring suburb.) She will continue Friday morning.
Here's another witness that will probably do more to help Franken's case than Coleman's. (Here's why the Internet is so cool that notes like this happen in real time! Check this opening line:)
I was a recount observer in Plymouth for both days it took there. Sandy was a terrific manager of the recount process. She was extremely well organized, efficient, and she ran a really tightly disciplined ship! A lot of people there, it would have been a zoo if she had not been such a strong disciplinarian holding down all idle talking while people were sorting and counting. And she read the riot act to both Coleman folks and Franken folks when they got too loud or broke any of her rules -- scrupulously fair. Anybody who saw it as I did would say it was absolutely fair. I fell in love with her. Unrequited love, sadly.
In other words if Sec. of State Mark Ritchie ever needs to hire someone for MN elections here's somebody you want!
2) Lawyers Written, Lawyers Oral
The real action was in the afternoon. The Court heard arguments for over 2 hours from both sides over the 19 "circumstances" that might lead to an absentee ballot being rejected. Each side had filed briefs at the end fo business Wednesday and bloggers took a look. General consensus:
As I read the competing briefs, it seems to me that Franken's response directly addresses each question posed by the court while Coleman's response hedges. Coleman's brief might seem on its face to support the counting of 17 categories, but that support seems to really be for special cases in many cases.
And a lawyer's take:
[Comment From annie esq]
The Franken memo is superior, as it rests its assertions on legal precedent throughout. The Coleman brief asserts (p.5) that "in the absence of any indicia of untrustworthiness Minnesota should presume its voters follow the law." It provides no legal authority that supports this statement, on which it rests its argument.
Starting at 1:00 Friedberg and Langdon opened for Coleman.
Freidberg made an impression:
no lawyer yer, but is he rambling or actually making a point? he's repeated himself in a few different ways about a few different topics
Brilliant argument - the law no longer applies
1:29
[Comment From aonanodad]
They never should have allowed Friedberg to present in this hearing.
1:29
[Comment From WaltAZ]
I can't believe the judges will buy that
1:29
[Comment From Frankly]
Your honor, there have been so many illegally cast ballots counted that there is no choice but to start over.
And mercifully (including a comment WineRev can REALLY cherish):
[Comment From Joe in GB]
So ends the creationist version of election contests.....
"Officer. I know went through that red light. We should now let everybody go through the red light to make up for it."
1:30
[Comment From Karolina]
Seems like they should go back and find all those illegally cast ballots that were counted and throw them out.
1:30
[Comment From Desperate Norm]
What they are trying to do now is putting the wine back in the bottle after THEY drank it.
Lillehaug & Elias answered for Franken. Elias' specialty is "election law" and I have to think that is rather esoteric so Al has an edge here. The bloggers agreed.
[Comment From Mrs B]
oh great argument - we aren't here to challenge the rules, we are here to establish whether votes followed the rules!
[Comment From Kyle H]
note to self: hire Elias if I ever need an attorney
3:13
.................
[Comment From WaltAZ]
What a concept - let's apply the MN law that the MN legislature put in place!
[Comment From VA Atty]
I'm liking Elias's argument. He argued with passion and with authority. He just gave the court a clear template for taking "strict compliance" view. Concise, logical and well-argued. Well done, Mr. Elias!
3)Fate Takes a Hand
Then about 10:00am Presiding Judge Elizabeth Hayden announced things were going in a new direction. Both sides would make their oral arguments Thursday afternoon as planned.
THEN: Friday morning: witness testimony (continuing with Sandra Engdahl, Plymouth.)
NO Court Friday afternoon because the ECC will be writing one or more court orders.
By Monday morning, Judge Elizabeth Hayden indicated, the judges will have their order ready for the Franken and Coleman attorneys. The panel has given the attorneys until 1 p.m. Monday to change their cases in reaction to that decision.
So a writing day for the Court. A sweating weekend for the paralegals. A blogging day for the UpTakers and Kossacks. Sounds like a great President's day treat. And Motion Monday could really rock.
I'll get my mojo back soon, but I gotta go. To all of you from yust southeast of Lake Wobegon.
Shalom.