Legal Commentary

Coleman-Franken Arguments Heard in MN Supreme Court

By Jeralyn

Five justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the Senate seat battle between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.

Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg argued that the panel applied too strict a standard in deciding which absentee ballots to count and that they didn't adhere to the constitution in coming up with that tally.

This argument relies on the fact that poll workers rejected some ballots for reasons that were not considered grounds for rejection by poll workers in other counties. "Every county should come very close to applying the same standards," Friedberg told the justices.

[More...]

Franken's attorney Marc Elias argued that these amounted to "minor variations," insufficient to trigger equal protection concerns.

"There are stories behind these ballots; there are reasons they were rejected," Elias said to the justices.

Franken said today he's confident the outcome will be in his favor.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on June 01, 2009 (boomark / email).