OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz

Information & Analysis

Minnesota contest - Coleman injunction denied, hearing on Franken's motion in limine and looking ahead to appeals and issuance of certificate

Last night, the Coleman v. Franken election contest court denied Coleman’s motion for a temporary injunction which had sought to stop the redaction of identifying information from the 933 absentee ballots counted by agreement of local officials and the campaigns at the end of the state canvass. See the Star Tribune coverage here. This morning, the court heard arguments on Franken’s motion to limit evidence. Coleman apparently seeks to introduce email responses of county officials about possibly lost registration records under the government records hearsay exception. Franken attorney Kevin Hamilton argued that such an exception encompasses documents produced because of the existence of a government duty and does not cover email replies to a question from attorneys in an election contest. Coleman’s attorney James Langdon argued that they seek to introduce facts from the local officials and that such statements by the officials need no cross-examination. Hamilton responded by saying that cross examination is essential and proper in a court of law and that requiring it is not an attack on the integrity of election officials. Langdon mentioned precedent for their interpretation of the evidence rules in his argument and the court is giving Hamilton a short time to prepare a response to the cited authority. Judge Hayden emphasized that the court would like to issue an order quickly on the matter.

Looking ahead, MPR has this article about the appeals process and when Minnesotans can expect an election certificate to be issued to a candidate. Minnesota law says that, in case of a contest, a certificate may not be issued “until a court of proper jurisdiction has finally determined the contest.” M.S.A. § 204C.40. That court may be the election contest court, it may not. But, another provision in the chapter on election contests says, “After the time for appeal has expired, or in case of an appeal, after the final judicial determination of the contest, upon application of either party to the contest, the court administrator of the district court shall promptly certify and forward the files and records of the proceedings, with all the evidence taken, to the presiding officer of the Senate or the House of Representatives of the United States.” M.S.A. § 209.12. This provision does not explicitly mention an “election certificate” but implies that nothing shall be sent to the Senate until any appeals have been completed. Another provision about the results of election contests says when “the time for appeal has expired or, in case of an appeal, if the contestant succeeds in the contest, the court may invalidate and revoke any election certificate which has been issued to the contestee.” M.S.A. § 209.07. This provision appears to contemplate circumstances where an election certificate may have been issued before the contest or any appeals were completed.


Edward B. Foley

Of Bouncing Balls and a Big Blue Shift

Edward B. Foley

It is a fortuitous coincidence that the University of Virginia’s Journal of Law & Politics has just published a piece of mine that shows the relevance of the current vote-counting process in Virginia’s Attorney General election to what might happen if the 2016 presidential election turns on a similar vote-counting process in Virginia. 

Read full post here.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Ohio treasurer receives OK to host town halls

Professor Daniel Tokaji was quoted in an article from the Associated Press about an attorney general opinion that allows the Ohio treasurer to conduct telephone town halls using public money. The opinion will likely have broad ramifications for the upcoming elections, Tokaji said.

“As a practical matter, while that legal advice is certainly right, very serious concerns can arise about whether these are really intended to inform Ohio constituents about the operations of his office or if they’re campaign events,” he said.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Judge Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction in NC Case

U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder denied the motion for a preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs in a case challenging a new North Carolina voting law as violating the Voting Rights Act and the federal Constitution. Judge Schroeder also denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case is North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory.

more info & analysis...