Franken-Coleman Update: Equal Protection, My Foot!

reading-tea-leaves.jpg

UPDATE: F-C Update is now Pawlentier! As in, we won’t have Tim to kick around anymore. . . .

During The UpTake’s video postmortem yesterday of the oral arguments before the Minnesota Supreme Court in Coleman v. Franken, I asked the following question of election-law expert Christian Sande: "Q: If Coleman’s so concerned about Equal Protection, why then did his GOP brethren — including Pawlenty — zap a bill designed to fix absentee balloting because it didn’t push requiring photo ID (which is an EP violation if ever I’ve heard one as it impacts the poor and elderly)?" (Oh, and by the way: Joe Friedberg, during the rebuttal, conceded that no election fraud of this or any other sort occurred in this election.)

Sande’s reply was to the effect that, while he agreed with me that mandatory photo ID for voting was indeed an equal-protection violation, the current Supreme Court does not.

Meanwhile, how screwed is Norm? Nobody — nobody — is arguing that he has a chance in hell, not after yesterday. In fact, the only real question is if it’s going to be unanimous for Franken; if it is, that makes it a lot harder for Smilin’ Tim to blow off. [UPDATE: 11:33 am CDT — Except, of course, if he decides he really rather please Republican primary voters in 2012 than the people of his own state right now or in 2010. Looks like he’s blowing off the governorship and the state so he can chase the false hope of being Sarah Palin’s running mate. Then again, does he really want to risk a writ of mandamus should he blow off a direct order from the Minnesota Supreme Court to sign Senator Franken’s election certificate? He hasn’t let his law license as far as I know, and it would look really bad for him to lose it through refusing to do the job he was elected to do.]

By the way, if you could toss The UpTake a few shekels next time you visit them, they’d really appreciate it!