Quote:I think he is counting on his lousy lawyers. But, I think his lawyers are counting on every vote having the same rules being applied when considering it to be legally cast or not, and that of the 10000 of so votes in question, only 415 people had the opportunity to contest the rejection of their vote.
In this case, I think equal protection means that the laws should be applied evenly. I can't even remember what the B v G case was about.
Bush v. Gore hinged on the issue of equal protection, whether different counties counting differently constituted a violation, and what then to do about it. Now, on the face of it, this makes for an avenue for Norm Coleman to challenge: absentee ballots (the 10k you mention) were counted differently than regular ones. This is, apparently, what they have argued, citing Bush v. Gore. However, there appear to be some basic issues with that. One is that Bush v. Gore is a stupendously weak precedent, since in the text of the decision itself, the majority wrote that their decision was limited to the circumstances of Bush v. Gore, and not to equal protection generally. (A humiliating moment for the supremes, but that's the way the decision stands.) Another is that absentee voting is considered a privilege in Minnesota, not a right, and therefore it would be more difficult to argue that they have identical protections from the equal protection clause. The last, if it goes all the way to the top, is that pushing too hard on the constitutional protections grates against state's rights. If the courts tell the states, in so many words, that they have to recount each and every ballot in a flawlessly identical manner, regardless of prevailing state standards, that will be a major ruling that would have far-reaching consequences. Maybe it would be a step in the right direction, but I think a lot of justices see that as dangerously close to legislating the electoral process.
They've also been hoisted by their own petard on several occasions, arguing contradictory things both in court and in public, depending on what serves the current best interests of Coleman. That's unlikely to impress either the justices or the public.
-Jester
Afterthought: It should be added that, in the aggregate, Franken is winning the recounted ballots, and will very likely continue to do so. So long as Coleman was ahead, even by a teeny bit, he could win by stopping the counting. Now that he's behind, he needs a miracle. This is why a) team Coleman has switched positions so dramatically so often, and b ) why this court battle is largely being seen as a Hail Mary pass for Coleman at this point, and not an even contest.