Franken wants Coleman to pay his legal costs in recount case Rachel Oswald

Published: Wednesday March 18, 2009





Print This Email This Under mounting attorney fees in a case that could possibly stretch on for months, Democrat Al Franken is seeking to recoup some of his legal costs from Republican Norm Coleman, who filed suit to overturn the results of January's Minnesota Senate recount.



In legal documents filed on Tuesday that summarize his side of the case, Franken asked the Minnesota state judges who heard the U.S. Senate trial to require his Republican opponent to pay court costs and some opposing attorneys' fees if Coleman is unsuccessful in his lawsuit, according to a report from The Star Tribune.



The Tribune reports that Franken wants the Coleman campaign to pay the costs of the seven-week recount trial (certified recount results had Franken leading by 225 votes). Additionally in seeking "reasonable costs and attorneys' fees" for the former SNL comedian's lawyers, the document refers to sanctions that the judges earlier imposed on Coleman for not following court rules on disclosing information about a witness.



The witness was Minnesota election judge Pamela Howell, a Republican. According to another report by The Star Tribune, she was dismissed from court because of undisclosed documents she provided to the Coleman campaign where she claimed votes were double-counted in Minneapolis. Her testimony, though, was entered into court as evidence.



As of February, Franken was heavily outspending Coleman in terms of legal costs. A report by The Am Law Daily had Franken outspending Coleman by a margin of 6 to 1.



While Coleman's campaign spent $105,000 on attorneys in the recount, according to The Daily's report, Franken paid out approximately $661,000 in attorney fees.



Even if Franken's case is upheld in Minnesota state court and the judges are so inclined to grant his request to recoup legal costs, the Coleman camp could forestall further by taking their suit to federal court, which they are already making strong noises about doing with the support of some top Senate Republicans.



The GOP is hoping to apply the ruling of the Supreme Court in 2000 in Bush v. Gore by arguing that Minnesota counties were in violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause by using differing methods of counting absentee ballots.



The Supreme Court in 2000 said in Bush v. Gore that there is an equal protection element of making sure there is a uniform standard by which votes are counted or not counted, and I think thats a very serious concern in this instance, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in a Tuesday Politico article. Im not making any predictions, but I wouldnt be surprised if it ended up in federal court."







Get Raw exclusives as they break -- Email & mobile Email - Never spam:



