Sunday, June 7, 2009

Minnesota Election Law Is That Bad?

Most legal experts come down on the side of the argument that the Coleman lawsuit in Minnesota that has kept the U.S. Senate diminished was based on no substantial facts:
Guy-Uriel Charles, a Duke University professor who specializes in election law, said that he had not talked to any colleagues in the legal community who had made a convincing argument that Coleman could win his appeal.

“It’s not that Coleman hasn’t raised important questions,” Charles said. “If it is true that counties are interpreting the absentee ballot rules differently because of differential resources, that’s a question the legislature should address, but I do not think that’s a question the courts could address after the fact.”
(Politico, emphasis added). Some courts call this type of scenario a non-justiciable remedy, meaning it is a problem legislatures need to remedy.

Which means that the law is defective in some way that needs repair, which a court cannot repair, because it is not the court's duty nor jurisdiction to do so.

Some blogs that claim to be election integrity leaders originally extolled the virtues of Minnesota Election Law, while Dredd Blog pointed out the flaws in that law from day one.

If all states mimicked Minnesota law the Senate, and therefore the country's government, could be shut down by a large number of close elections for senators.

We were correct from day one that such blogs should acknowledge the error of their rhetoric and the short sightedness of their advocacy.

No comments:

Post a Comment