To say Minnesotans are weary of the ongoing court review of the Al Franken and Norm Coleman election count would be an understatement.
The unresolved election seems to have dragged on longer than the brutally long winter.
After eight weeks of litigation, Franken has not only held his narrow lead but extended it to 312 after a special three-judge panel last week examined 351 previously unopened ballot envelopes.
The court on Monday issued its ruling — that Franken drew the most votes — but Coleman’s lawyers had already indicated they will appeal the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
With virtually all legal arguments and the vote total going in Franken’s favor throughout the review process, many Minnesotans are saying Coleman should accept the inevitable now and not appeal to the state’s high court.
But it is important that the state court system be allowed to fully review the legal questions in the case.
Coleman’s lawyers, who want as many as 4,800 more rejected absentee ballots reviewed, make serious allegations about the legitimacy of the state’s election system. They argue the three-judge panel isn’t seriously looking at flaws in the system that makes it impossible to determine a winner in very close races.
Whether or not that is true should be of great interest to all Minnesotans and it is a question that the state Supreme Court should review.
If, however, the high court either allows the three-judge panel’s ruling to stand, or takes the case for review and ultimately rules against Coleman, Franken should be seated in the U.S. Senate.
There are already indications that Coleman would push the case into the federal courts if he loses before the state’s high court. That would benefit the Republican Party by keeping Democrat Franken out of the Senate for many more months.
The issues being raised by Coleman may be important, but Minnesotans should feel confident the state’s judicial system, including the Minnesota Supreme Court, is fully capable of deciding state election issues.
Dragging a losing case into the federal court system would smack more of political tricks than a sincere attempt to clarify state election law.
Editorials
Our View: Election review shouldn't go to federal courts
- Editorials
-
-
Our View: Patriot fans behave poorly
Thumbs down: To Pawngo.com and its CEO Todd Hills for his company’s dumping of hundreds of Butterfinger candy bars in Boston’s Copley Square in a jab at New England Patriot receiver Wes Welker for a dropped pass in the Super Bowl.
-
Latest editorial cartoons Feb. 10-11, 2012
A sampling of editorial cartoons from around the U.S.A.
-
Latest editorial cartoons Feb. 8-9, 2012
A sampling of editorial cartoons from around the U.S.A.
-
Our View: Legislate voter ID proposal
If 80 percent of Minnesota voters favor requiring a photo ID to vote, we’re wondering why it hasn’t happened at the Legislature.
-
Our View: Santorum shakes up GOP race
Mitt Romney’s message leading up to Tuesday’s nominating contests in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri was: Vote for me, because I’m inevitable.
-
Latest editorial cartoons Feb. 8-9, 2012
A sampling of editorial cartoons from around the U.S.A.
-
Our View: Interlock system for DWI works
It’s no stretch of the imagination to argue a new law governing drunk driving in Minnesota is likely having a significant impact on public safety.
-
Editorial: Teachers: experience is not everything (Poll)
Why it matters: Teacher seniority protection not the best way to ensure the most qualified teachers are in the classroom.
-
Latest editorial cartoons Feb. 2012
A sampling of editorial cartoons from around the U.S.A.
-
Our View: A new take on mentoring
Why it matters
Success of youth depends on the number of healthy relationships they have during their years of development. - More Editorials Headlines
-





