St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer - elections

Why Do Anti-Government Politicians Hang On To Their Jobs So Dearly?

Mike Bryant — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:00:00 GMT

It was interesting when the anti-government group first started to get elected. Their mantra of term limits, new ways, and less government was very interesting to so many voters. The "Contract With America" was their blue print for success. But, what has happened to the group? Seems like so many of them just can't wait to cash their next government check. What happened to to the talk of term limits? I guess a couple more Democrat victories and we will hear about them again. But, with the way they raise money and fight for their jobs, they really don't want to get off the dole.

The recent health care debate got me thinking about this topic. It's been sad to see the issue so politicized. For a number of people, it really is just an attempt to weaken the President and to spout a very odd agenda. To somehow proclaim victory or a waterloo. This is just silly. Weren't they in power not that long ago? Why didn't they implement their ideas on health care?

The thing is that there are so many who only want to get elected. It isn't about any issue. It's about them. I guess it really should be a surprise to see not a single Republican really supporting heath care reform. They need to pander to health insurance companies, the HMO's, and big business. It's time to get over this anti consumer plan and start talking about change that will work for everyone. No one single election is really that important, or at least with their earlier statements, really shouldn't be.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Stop The Election Lies About What Happened In Minnesota

Mike Bryant — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:48:52 GMT

Let's start with the needed congratulations to the new Minnesota Senator. It was a long election night and it has been a long road to get to this point. But all of the Minnesota parts of the election process have been duly served and pushed to their ultimate end. There is now a winner and thankfully no national appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The important issue now is to get to the national business and for Minnesota to be finally fully represented. It is also time to stop the lies that this election will undoubtedly spawn.

- The recount was mandatory. The margin was so close that the law required the totals be looked at, so there should be no claim that the democrats stole the election

- The people involved with the recount are good Minnesotans who did their best. Both candidates were fully represented , every step of the way, and just like election night, county election officials should be thanked for their efforts.

- Every step of the way, the election rules were followed. The certification panel and the jurists who all looked at the issue did so as the law required. There is never a point where partisanship controlled the process.

- Finally, the Supreme Court followed the law as the trial court did. The decisions were well reasoned and supported by all independent legal experts who reviewed them.

Now it's understandable that the losing side is troubled. I was after election night. But to attack the system is just plain wrong. From the state party we get:

Today’s ruling wrongly disenfranchised thousands of Minnesotans who deserve to have their votes counted. Alongside Senator Coleman, the Republican Party of Minnesota has fought to make sure every vote counts and all voters are treated fairly and uniformly. As we move forward, our deeply flawed election system must be dramatically improved to ensure our state’s elections are fair, accurate and reliable.

From the National party:

“I am deeply disappointed in the decision made by the state Supreme Court, and I share the frustration of Minnesota’s voters. At the core of our democracy lies two concrete principles: No valid vote should go uncounted and all votes should be treated equally. Sadly, those principles were not adhered to during this election. While I would have proudly stood behind Norm Coleman had he chosen to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, I know that his decision to withdraw from this race was not an easy one, but one that he felt was the best decision for the people of Minnesota. For the last six years, Norm represented the people of Minnesota with distinction, earning a much deserved reputation as one of the hardest-working members of Congress. I, on behalf of all Republicans, thank him for his service and will miss his leadership in Washington.”

This is patently false. Neither side was ever arguing that all votes should be counted. You can't find that argument at any level of the proceedings. Each side wanted to cheery pick and come up with a winning total. Fortunately the law doesn't allow that for anyone.

Keep this in mind as the future arguments revolve around the year the Democrats stole an election. It's garbage

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

U S Supreme Court decision In Massey Is A Win For Fairness In The Courts

Mike Bryant — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:42:00 GMT

A couple of months ago I blogged on the importance of the upcoming Massey decision and if justice could be purchased. The decision was a clear indicator that it could not be. As was explained in the Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week calling for judges to stay out of cases involving big political donors confronts the growing role of money in the U.S. judicial system." The Journal adds, "Political donations to judicial candidates at the highest state courts have soared in recent years, creating concerns that money is eroding public confidence in the system." Opponents of that system say "states should enact such reforms as requiring taxpayers to underwrite judicial races" or "scrap contested elections in favor of appointing judges to the bench, which is the practice of some states."

Hopefully, the ruling with also give rise to higher standers in policing these contributions. As Bert Brandenburg, director of the National Organization For Justice at Stake, pointed out, "The Supreme Court opinion left the door open for all states to develop more stringent refusal standards." He added, "Now [it is] up to each state to fill in the finer points."

The Washington Post went further to conclude that because of the issues raised in the case "States should consider abandoning judicial elections for a merit selection system that better insulates judges from the corrosive influences of money and politics." I agree that retention elections should at least be looked at. Money should not buy justice. Thankfully the highest court agreed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Mr. Franken Goes to Washington!

Joe Crumley — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:14:07 GMT

Humorist Al Franken could finally breathe a sigh of relief after securing election to the U.S Senate by only 312 votes. In what Franken termed a "gracious phone call," former Senator Norm Coleman told Franken that he would not appeal Tuesday's unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court decision. The concession came after a lengthy recount and legal battle that swung the vote totals back and forth. Coleman was ahead by 206 votes shortly after Election Day, almost eight full months ago, but the recount steadily favored Franken.

Governor Tim Pawlenty and the Minnesota Secretary of State promptly signed the election certificate, so it's off to Washington for Mr. Franken! Senator-elect Franken, expected to be sworn in after the July 4th holiday, faces the immense responsibility of representing Minnesotans in the U.S. Senate. He also has a lot of learning and catching up to do, as the most Junior of 100 Senators.

Minnesotans - who have gone with just a single Senator for half the year, can also breathe a sigh of relief. We will finally have Two Senators again, as promised in the U.S. Constitution.

Minnesota - and other states - would do well to look again at their election laws with an eye toward streamlining the recount process. After the mess of the Bush v. Gore 200 presidential election, Minnesotans were proud - perhaps too proud - of our election laws. After all, hadn't we learned from the 4-1/2 month recount in our 1962 governor's race? Didn't we just need a little fine-tuning after what we saw in Florida in 2000?

And yet, Minnesotans spent the last half year only half represented in the United States Senate, which is totally unacceptable. There must be a better way! 4-1/2 months was unnacceptable in 1962, so why should 8 months be acceptable in 2009? And that's without any Federal appeal!

I suppose the governemnt will want 100% of our taxes in 2009. No 50% or even 25% discount for underrepresented Minnesotans, of that we can be sure!

Taxation without representation.... where have I heard that before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAo8Ufq0B2I

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Crumley

Norm Coleman Senator Of Change

Mike Bryant — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:03:56 GMT

A long time ago, I had the privilege of helping to run the floor for Norm Coleman's first run for mayor of St Paul. It was a long day and after a couple of rounds of voting, one the the other two major candidates was set to drop out. The word was that the drop out would endorse no one. Instead the failed, long time St Paulite got up to the podium and endorsed the opponent. Norm and the rest of us were devastated. The numbers didn't look good and despite our protests, the young assistant attorney general, Norm Coleman took to the microphone and dropped out after the next vote. He could have held on to his dwindling numbers two more rounds and forced the city convention into a stale mate. Instead, Norm Coleman decided that he would come back to fight another day.

There were a number of better days. He entertained the idea of being the State drug czar, an appointment that Governor Perpich gave to someone else. He actually did become Mayor of St Paul. Norm Coleman ran for governor and was part of the Jesse Ventura steamroll. He stood on the center stage with the post 911 President of the United States, was elected into the U S Senate and was part of Minnesota's flirtation with the purple state category.

When you look at the Coleman's history, it really is quite remarkable how far he came from that day when he looked at the numbers in St Paul. It is sad to watch that same guy carry out satewide press conferences yesterday. Primarily, because he sopped looking at the numbers:

Coleman again claims that he's really about counting all the votes. Clearly, that's not the case. This isn't a fight to Count Them All because every time that happens Frankin picks up more votes.
He again claims that this is not for political or patrician reasons. Clearly, that's not the case because it's been well documented that this recount is the RNC's operation to prevent a crucial vote from making it on the Senate floor. That 60th vote is so vital , yet the party is bending over back wards to stop it.
Finally, he champions the right to legal recourse. As I pointed out some time ago, it's a bit galling that the leader of Tort Reform is now the champion of the right to the open courtroom, although I do agree that the right is there.

It seems to me that on that spring day back in the early 90's Norm made the right decision. It paid off in many ways for him. It's time that that guy make his way back to the podium.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Minnesota Looking At How To Elect It's Judges

Mike Bryant — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:05:00 GMT

Presently, the Minnesota Legislature is looking at ways in which to deal with Minnesota elections. The reason for the discussion is the passage of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White when the U S Supreme Court struck down the Minnesota canon of judicial ethics which barred candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues. The options were looked at by the Quie Commission and a number of options were considered:

1) Do nothing. It makes these elections like any other and may bring the multi million dollar races in to the state that are taking place in other parts of the country.

2) Appoint judges for life or for set terms that eliminate the elections all together. This takes the vote away from the people. It is like the federal judges.

3) Retention elections where the issue is whether the judge should remain or not. In these elections, there is still the vote, but there is no opposite. So if the judge loses they are replaced through an appointment system. Parties that want their own agenda on the bench or can't get appointed don't like this option.

Personally, I am quite concerned about political endorsements in judicial elections and what the affect of more money is going to do to the system. It is particularly bothersome that the U S Supreme Court , which doesn't face elections and which chaffs at the thought of being asked issue questions in their nomination process, is making the decisions it has. But, taking away the vote completely is very unAmerican. My hope is that the retention elections continue to get traction and we see something that prevents the buying of the state supreme court seats.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Campaign Contributions To Judges: What Do They Mean?

Mike Bryant — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:50:00 GMT

Here in Minnesota, we have seen a couple of contested judicial races, but nothing on the level of the multi million dollar slugfests that have taken place in other states. Clearly, special interest groups have attempted to pack state supreme courts ( in some cases successfully) to promote an agenda. The American Tort Reform Association and the American Justice Partnership, a wing of the National Association of Manufacturers, pumped more than $700,000 into the 2008 Illinois judicial elections .

I've given to candidates in district elections and statewide. As a member of the Certified Trial Lawyers, I have participated in discussions of endorsements of judges who we hope will let us try our cases. Doing both civil and criminal trials, it's the juries who decide the fact issues, so judges who keep things moving and rule evenly are really what my clients need.

Presently, there is a case heading to the United States Supreme court that could again change the landscape for judicial elections. The last time being Republican Party of Minnesota v. White when the Supreme Court struck down the Minnesota canon of judicial ethics that barred candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co the Court will be faced with the question of whether a West Virgina Supreme Court of Appeals Justice has to recuse himself from an appeal in which the president of the company is seeking reversal of a $50 million jury verdict, was the largest contributor -- $3 million in direct and indirect contributions -- to the judge's campaign. To the general public, this smells. A Harris Interactive poll found that "an overwhelming majority of people...doubted that elected judges can be impartial in cases that involve major campaign donors."

The Caperton court's decision could have a number of implications. Will it bar all contributors from appearing before the campaigning judge? That might make some sense, but what about when it's the U S Chamber giving away a pile of money? They don't really appear as litigants directly. Maybe, there is an amount that could be the bar? But, that number would be arbitrary at best. Or the Court , like White , might just open up the door to even greater problems with these elections.

Judges face way too many different issues, to be elected on single platforms or with plans to rewrite justice. I personally like the idea of retention elections or simple appointments. It will save money and it gives us the best shot at judges free of special interests. But, we will have to see what the unelected and offended if they are asked personal questions, members of the United States Supreme Court say about it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Minnesota Judges Up for Election Asked to Take Pledge

Mike Bryant — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:16:16 GMT

Since the United States Supreme Court in 2002 ruled in Republican Party of Minnesota vs.. White that Minnesota judges can announce his or her views on legal disputes or political issues there have been statewide discussion about how judicial elections may change. In 2006 there were three contested elections where candidates sought and received political endorsements. In an attempt to head off those issues in this years election the Minnesota State Bar Association formed the Judicial Elections Campaign Conduct Committee to create a code of conduct for Minnesota judicial elections. Recently the committee created a pledge which they will ask all candidates to sign. The pledge contains:

-Be personally responsible for the content of all statements and campaign materials;
-Refrain from making public comments about pending or impending court proceedings or announce their opinions on disputed political issues or make promises about how they would rule;
-Disavow any advertisement that announces their views on disputed legal or political issues or makes promises or commitments;
-Refrain from identifying themselves or their opponents as members of a political organization;
-Refrain from personally seeking campaign contributions. Candidates are encouraged to establish finance committees to raise funds on their behalf.

Looking at the big money elections that have taken place in other states , where special interests have come in to buy seats or to change a benches majority, the hope is that all candidates will sign this pledge.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant