Posted: February 10, 2009
Coleman and Franken disagree about admissibility of testimony
Franken has filed a motion to exclude testimony of one of Coleman’s proposed experts. Coleman wants the witness to testify about statistical analyses of the variation among counties in absentee ballot rejection rates. He says that the testimony will show that the variation in rejection rates is not the result of pure chance and will be important to the equal protection issues in the case. The court may or may not have disposed of the Bush v. Gore style equal protection issue in an order last week, so it remains to be seen whether they will admit evidence on this issue. Franken’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony is here. Coleman’s memo in opposition is here.
PDF files in this site require
Commentary
Arizona: Voter Registration and the Road Ahead
Justin Levitt
June arrived with two election law cases at the Supreme Court. One is still pending: a highly anticipated decision on section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The other, more frequently overlooked, was decided yesterday. And there are some quirks of the opinion that seem to depart from the swiftly congealing conventional wisdom that the states might actually have "won," and now need only run out the clock.
more commentary...