Two Republicans Appeal - One is Credible: Republican lawyers head to courts today in post-election legal action in the two still unresolved federal elections: Minnesota's 2008 Senate election and last month's special election in New York's 20th Congressional District.

     The legal team of former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) is expected to file an appeal to the state Supreme Court alleging mistakes by the special three-judge panel overseeing the recount trial resulted in the disenfranchisement of as many as 4000 voters. The action comes as opinion polls register discount among Minnesota voters who believe that Coleman should give up the fight. After trailing in the initial vote tally, Al Franken (DFL-MN) was declared the winner after a mandatory hand recount. His victory was confirmed by the proceeding legal challenge brought by the Minnesota Republican.

     Although the process has taken a frustratingly long time, Minnesota has executed a near flawless recount production which should become the model for every state's election system. Despite the drama and high intensity, Minnesota avoided the mob demonstrations and mindless accusations which dominated high profile recounts in Florida and Washington in recent years. Minnesota conducted a recount that was open, forthright and transparent. The results easily verifiable by any political junkie with access to the internet.

     It is because of this transparency and openness, the calls for Coleman to capitulate have only grown louder. But D.C.'s Political Report wants to go on the record in favor of Coleman's appeal. There was an early mistake during the recount process which can only be rectified with action by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

     After the state Canvassing Board denied a request by Al Franken to review absentee ballots wrongfully excluded, the former television personality filed a motion with the state Supreme Court asking them to order the inclusion of all valid absentee ballots. The court, in a poorly written decision, ordered the Canvassing Board to consider absentee ballots which all parties agreed were wrongfully excluded in the initial count. Unfortunately, the wording of the order gave the Democratic and Republican candidates veto power over the inclusion of some absentee ballots. Because of challenges by Coleman and Franken, several hundred valid ballots were excluded from the final count.

     The recount trial has mooted this error. After a thorough review, the court allowed an additional 351 previously rejected absentee ballots to be opened and counted. But the precedential value of the earlier mistake remains. Only the Minnesota Supreme Court can rectify the situation. Candidates and parties should never be granted the absolute power to disenfranchise voters.

     The other legal action will take place in the New York's Supreme Court for Dutchess County, which despite the name, is a lower court in New York state. It is a repetitive and unnecessary action by Republican congressional nominee James "Jim" Tedisco (R-NY).

     After failing earlier to get a favorable decision by state Supreme Court Justice James Brands, lawyers for Tedisco filed a second legal action, almost identical to the first, asking the courts to again consider issues previously adjudicated. In an interview with the press, attorney James Walsh, who is leading the effort for the GOP, says “This is me being a cautious lawyer, just in case we are knocked out of the box on this one technicality.” Tedisco is asking the court to authorize re-canvassing of all machine ballots to acquire the "proper" tallies, a reassessment of the validity of absentee votes already counted, and an injunction to keeping ballots challenged by Tedisco unopened. And for good measure, Walsh is asking the court to declare Tedisco the winner despite the fact that he trails Democratic nominee Scott Murphy (D-NY) by 372 votes.

     The only ballots left to be counted are those which were challenged during the canvassing process. Since Tedisco made more of these challenges, most political observers are expecting Murphy to win a lion's share and increase his current lead. Most of the challenges from Tedisco stem from the fact that the voters in question have two homes. Tedisco claims that in order to vote legally, the voter needs to reside within the district for a majority of the time. This claim was rejected by New York courts in an earlier precedential decision. There have been also spurious accusations by Democrats that Tedisco was summarily challenging absentee ballots from voters with Jewish or Hispanic surnames.

     Whatever legal grounds Tedisco might have, his legal actions so far appear to be more geared toward delaying a final vote count instead of protecting his rights. I wish I could say that Tedisco's motives are as pure as Coleman's. But Tedisco has a reputation for the dramatic and confrontational. His recent decision to resign his leadership position in Albany, coupled with a loss in the congressional contest, could likely mean the end of his political career. Based only on his legal actions in this close election, it would come too late.

Your Comments Here.