Opening day indicates long Coleman-Franken trial

The first day of Republican Norm Coleman’s challenge of Democrat Al Franken’s certified win in Minnesota’s Senate race indicates a drawn-out and contentious trial — fitting with the tenor of the months-long recount.
 
Attorneys for Coleman and Franken both pressed conflicting cases for why their candidate should be named the state’s next senator.
 
{mosads}Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg invoked the landmark Supreme Court decision handing the 2000 presidential election to then-Gov. George W. Bush.
 
“We want you to do what the law demands you do under Bush v. Gore, which is level the playing field,” Friedberg said during the first day’s arguments. “Everybody has to have the same standards apply.”
 
The Coleman campaign argued that because of inconsistent standards applied by local elections officials, the Board of Canvassers never had complete or accurate information when certifying the race in Franken’s favor.
 
Franken attorney Kevin Hamilton countered by saying a reversal would be “a breathtaking exercise of judicial power that should be undertaken in only the rarest of cases,” and added that it would require “breathtaking evidence” to make such a decision.
 
The legal arguments ended on the question of how or whether Coleman’s campaign would be allowed to present evidence to support their claim of an inconsistent standard when it came to recounting the ballots.
 
Following opening arguments Monday afternoon, the attorneys argued early over evidence with the Coleman campaign displaying copies of absentee ballots treated differently by officials. A panel of three judges overseeing the tedious listing sustained an objection by Franken’s campaign to introducing those ballots into evidence.
 
The court recessed for the day without ruling on how to proceed next with the evidence.
 
Coleman was in the courtroom for the trial, while Franken was not.
 
“We have a strong case,” Coleman said in a statement released Monday afternoon.  “More importantly, Minnesotans have a strong case to be made that we should decide this election, not politicians in Washington, D.C., or clever legal motions intended to deprive us of our legal rights to ensure the most accurate and valid count to ensure the most credible results of this election.”