The Senator who became a Comedian

Sitting in the awkward purgatory between the November elections and the June 1st start date for oral arguments for Minnesota’s open Senate seat; Norm Coleman finds himself that much closer to becoming the comedian that he ran against in the 2008 election.

The 2008 Elections were historic in many regards. The key accomplishment, from the individual, nation’s, and historical perspective were encompassed when Senator Barack Obama became the first African American President in United States history. Adding to the significant milestone was the national democratic bulldozer that saw 19 Senate seats and 257 House seats respond to the 8 year Republican folly that became George W. Bush’s America.

And though the House majority changes parties more than ESPN NFL Analysts revise predictions, the 19 seat swing in the Senate was bittersweet. With the 19 seats, the Democrats obtained a 58-41 majority in the Senate and only 2 seats shy of the filibuster proof 60 seat majority that would help streamline President Elect Obama’s first 100 days in office.

While Obama was busy establishing his cabinet and working on his daughter’s school options, 1 election night drama was still playing out in the Midwest. At the close of the polls on November 4th, Senator Coleman, standing in front of his reelection party and team, was overly confident that his 215 vote lead would maintain his title and office in D.C. However, after a strenuous county by county, ballot by ballot, manual (hand) recount, the MN race tilted in favor of the Democratic challenger Al Franken with a 225 vote lead.

From the moment the recount was finalized, Coleman has been playing to every legal option at his disposal. Excluding the election re-count which would have been undertaken regardless; Minnesotans have had to endure a 3-judge panel trial where the recount and election ballot rejections were ridiculed and scrutinized. Whether the intention of an unclearly defined ballot selection can be accurately determined by a recount engineer to absentee ballot requirements; both Coleman and Franken legal teams entrenched themselves in their defense strategies.

For Franken, the 225 vote lead only needed to be maintained. Therefore, as long as the argument could be made that all un-counted absentee ballots should continue to be left out of the equation, or that the differing state counties followed legislative guidelines for counting votes were deemed appropriate and unbiased; then the election should be concluded with Franken as the winner.

For Coleman, the 225 difference largely focused on the 4,400 restricted ballots that he felt met state law for legal votes and therefore should be counted and added to the final tally for each candidate. If this were to occur, Coleman and his team feel that he would make up the 225 vote differential and therefore retain his Senate seat for another term. But, after the 3 panel court ruled, Franken saw his 225 vote count increase to 312. With the ruling, Coleman was forced to the brink of exhausting his last resource in Minnesota for a new election outcome.

The month of May saw legal documents and briefs submitted faster than text message votes for American Idol candidates. Coleman’s lawyers are hinting at taking the case to the Federal circuit; namely the Supreme Court; to insist that Coleman’s campaign efforts are granted via the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protections Clause broadly defines that “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Coleman’s legal brain trust is arguing that the lax of voting standards in all 87 counties in the State is hindering the true intention of the voter, therefore impacting the equal protection of the citizens voting rights. They are arguing that legally cast votes were illegal withheld based off the three panel’s ruling and that election night standards were impacted after the election was held. The assertion is that election judge compliance terms were not consistently maintained from election night to the panel trial. Leaving the argument that the withheld ballots should be reviewed using, essentially, a hybrid of all 87 counties ballot requirements allowances. But, this is problematic as the rules are changing after the election has been held. If voting standards are viewed as inconsistent across the state, it is the legislatures job to draft the resolution; not the courts.

While Coleman’s attorney’s have been busy trying to keep him in office, Coleman has been busy trying to figure out how to continue paying his mounting legal fees. In early May, paperwork was filed to allow the former Senator to use campaign contributions to fund his appeal. With the grey area of interpretation in Federal Campaign Finance Law, it appears that the allocation of campaign funds can be applied in this situation.

Section 439a. of Federal Campaign Finance Law concerns the use of Contributed amounts for certain purposes. Section 1 states that candidate can use donated funds for “authorized expenditures in connection with the campaign, and Section 2 states that contributions can be used “for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred with the duties of the individual as a holder of Federal Office”. It appears that based on Section 1; Coleman will be able to use campaign dollars for his continued election challenge. Because even though he is no longer technically a sitting Federal Office holder, he’s legal challenge is still going to fall under the “expenditures in connection with the campaign” law.

At any rate, Coleman’s efforts reek of the last moment desperation. He often half jokingly mentioned during that campaign that his candidate was nothing but a entertainer, and that he would not be the best state representative to ensure Minnesotans needs were met. However, Coleman, went so far during the campaign to repackage his appearance invoking the 80’s nickname of “Norm”. But, Minnesota is not made up of Sam’s or Diane’s. If there is one lesson that he has failed to learn in politics, it is the ability to bow out gracefully. Politics does not enjoy a sour loser. Even party alliances will shift and colleagues will stop returning your call if you fail to throw in the white towel at an appropriate time. It is at these moments that over-aggressiveness will lead to the inevitable comedic downward spiral.

Therefore, to salvage what is left Coleman will need to abandon his election challenge if the Minnesota Supreme Court finds that no Due Process or Equal Protection issues occurred. He can spend the next 5 or so years learning from this contest in order to make another run in 2012. And if his political image and confidence have been shaken, Coleman should take a cue from some of his challengers earlier work. After all, at least he still thinks that “He's Good Enough, Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!”