Abstract
Abstract
The largely successful resolution of Minnesota's disputed 2008 U.S. Senate election offers a model from which other states can benefit in the event they confront a similar dispute. In particular, Minnesota employed impartial and balanced institutions, its State Canvassing Board and three-judge trial court, to conduct the recount and subsequent litigation of this Senate election. The lack of partisan bias in the composition and deliberation of these institutions was, by far, the overriding factor in making the eventual outcome of the election legitimate in the eyes of the losing side as well as the winners.
But the legitimacy of Coleman v. Franken came at an unacceptably high price in terms of the excessively long time that it took—eight months—to achieve this outcome. Had the dispute involved a presidential election, Minnesota's experience would have been an utter failure, rather than a qualified success.
The primary purpose of this article is to develop a set of procedures that can achieve the same impartial fairness of Coleman v. Franken but within the strict time constraints essential for presidential elections (and also suitable for senatorial, gubernatorial and other statewide elections). In doing so, the article also draws other lessons from Coleman v. Franken, including the observation that a well-designed set of state procedures capable of being both fair and fast should be free from the interference of federal institutions that might undermine either objective.
Table of Contents
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.