Minnesota State Supreme Court finds for Franken.

Tweet

After reading the Minnesota State Supreme Court ruling, I have to agree with it. Not because I agree with the decision or the interpretation of cited caselaw and State constitution, but because they DID use Minnesota caselaw and the state Constitution in coming to their conclusion. It came down to the difference between "Strict" compliance to the absentee ballot laws and "Substantial" compliance (ie, "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law"). In other words, it came down to the judgement of the justices... which is what they are tasked to use. The court didn't touch the problems with in-state absentee voting (which is a complete contradiction in the first place), nor did it address the holes in state election laws that make fraudulent voting easy. Niether of these points were part of the Constitutional question, so the court was right to base their ruling on them. However, it leaves the question open and puts an asterisk on the election. The state supreme court didn't "give" the election to either side. They simply listened to the arguments, applied the arguments to the questions at hand, and made a ruling. The whole sordid event does reinforce the importance of all states to review their election laws to close all the stupid loopholes that not only allow voter fraud, but encourage it. But that is a fight for another day. The fight for the Minnesota Senate seat is finally over, and Franken there really aren't any reasons for the Senate to deny Franken his seat. (((Note: this doesn't reduce the scumminess of Franken or his staff. It's too bad general scumminess isn't a disqualifier for elected office.)))