Norm Coleman attorney James Langdon, in a letter to judges hearing the Minnesota election contest:
Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates — and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast — the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election. In that regard, the Court may wish to review the following cases addressing situations in which the number of illegal votes is large and the margin of victory is small…
So, first Coleman’s attorney’s argue for proportionate reduction, and now they argue that if the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin of victory, the entire election has to be set aside and redone. Sounds familiar, no?
There are in fact rare grounds for setting aside the results of an election, but as we learned in WA in 2004, closeness sure as hell ain’t one of them. Of course, what happened here holds no legal precedence for MN, but dollars to donuts the judges there will be looking at Judge Bridge’s decision before writing their own.
Ya, sure, you betcha, since Francken’s legal team includes 2 Seattle lawyers who helped convince Judge Bridges to make that ruling.
@1
Smart move on Franken’s part.
Actually, Judge Bridges’ decision (last name of Bridges, not Bridge) wouldn’t have any precedential value to speak of. The decision was made by a trial court, not by an appellate court. As a state trial court decision, it was not “published” in any of the legal reporters (books in which precedential decisions are published). Also, I don’t know whether Judge Bridges went into a detailed explication of the law (such as prior case law precedents and/or discussion of applicable statutes) in his decision.
In any event, Judge Bridges’ decision, and the legal briefing by the Gregoire team in that case, would provide valuable research material for arguing Franken’s case.
Richard, a transcript of Judge Bridges’s decision can be found here.
I’m no lawyer, so I can’t tell whether what he said constitutes “detailed explication of the law”. Your thoughts on the matter would be valuable.