OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Coleman v. Franken

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: January 6, 2009 / June 30, 2009
State: Minnesota
Issues: MN Senate race 2008, Recount Resources, Absentee Ballots
Courts that Heard this Case: Ramsey County District Court (Case 62-CV-09-56); Minnesota Supreme Court (Case A09-697)

Issue:

Whether there were irrgeularities in the conduct of the election that affected the result.

Status:

Decision granted in favor of Franken on 4/13.  Appeal filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court on 4/20.  Briefs have been filed.  Oral arguments held 6/1. Opinion filed 6/30.

Minnesota Supreme Court Documents

(Supreme Court Document Page)

Ramsey County District Court Documents

(MN Courts Document Page) (Docket) (Trial Video)

Related Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Anti-Trumpersí Most Futile Effort Yet to Stop Trump from Being Sworn In

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Law Newz about efforts to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts to decline conducting Donald Trump’s Oath of Office on Inauguration Day. Even though the U.S. Constitution requires the President to take an oath of office, the the Chief Justice is not required to administer it. It is unlikely that such attempts will prevent Trump from being sworn in, Foley said.

“I think the main point is that the oath doesn’t need to be administered by the Chief Justice,” he said. “After Kennedy’s assassination, a federal district judge in Texas administered the oath to Johnson.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal District Court Panel Finds Unconstitutional Gerrymandering in Alabama

In an opinion released today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found unconstitutional gerrymandering in 12 Alabama districts. In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, one judge on the panel would have found more districts unconstitutionally drawn. The case is Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.

more info & analysis...