I've endorsed Joe DiSalvo for Pitkin County Sheriff several times over the past six months. Here's one more reason: Di Salvo supports the legalization of drugs for personal use:

DiSalvo, who is currently Pitkin County undersheriff, said he had no interest in whether people in their own homes “fire up a joint or do a line on [their] table.” That means no undercover work would be done by deputies under his command, DiSalvo said, calling the action too expensive and dangerous for law enforcement officers.

“I think adults should be able to do what they want in their own homes and do so safely,” DiSalvo said, adding that that attitude does not apply to children or people getting behind the wheel of automobiles.

Di Salvo shares the views of Aspen's retiring Sheriff (and my personal fave) Bob Braudis: [More...]

New York Magazine has a ten page excerpt from the new book, Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, which hits the stores Monday.

You'll feel like taking a shower after reading it.

So sez the Minnesota Supreme Court:

– A unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Democrat Al Franken should be certified the winner of the state's long-running Senate race, paving the way for the former Saturday Night Live comedian to be seated after an almost eight-month fight.

Coleman concedes. It's over.

Five justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the Senate seat battle between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.

Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg argued that the panel applied too strict a standard in deciding which absentee ballots to count and that they didn't adhere to the constitution in coming up with that tally.

This argument relies on the fact that poll workers rejected some ballots for reasons that were not considered grounds for rejection by poll workers in other counties. "Every county should come very close to applying the same standards," Friedberg told the justices.

[More...]

The opinion from the ECC (PDF). Have not read it yet. Just know that it declares Franken the winner. Coleman will appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. More later.

Rick Hasen's take - "Coleman's Chances on Appeal Appear Quite Small."

I have had many a nasty thing or two to say about Powerline in my blogging life, but credit where due to Scott Johnson for a pretty fair appraisal of the Minnesota Senate recount. In an election this close, it really is basically a tie. But you count the votes as best you can. The Franken team was simply better. Johnson writes:

I think Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) statement on the Minnesota Senate election contest let's you know where the end of the line comes for Coleman:

Events today do not address the main issue that remains unresolved: over 4,000 Minnesotans were disenfranchised by this three-judge panel. That's why it's so critical for this process to move forward before the Minnesota Supreme Court and why Senate Republicans fully support Senator Coleman's efforts. "The message from our side has remained consistent throughout this process: we want this election to resolve itself as quickly, but not at the expense of Minnesota's laws or voters. . . . Senate Democrats should stand down, set partisan politics aside, and respect Minnesota's laws and voters."

(Emphasis supplied.) No "equal protection" talk. Only a passing reference to "enfranchising the voters." The Minnesota Supreme Court is the end of the line for Coleman.

Speaking for me only

The Minnesota Senate contest is a foregone conclusion, as it was when it started, Al Franken won the election. Today, at the direction of the Minnesota Election Contest Court, Minnesota counted more ballots. The result? Franken's 225 vote lead expanded to a 312 vote lead. Apparently, the more votes Coleman asks to be counted, the larger Franken's lead becomes.

The question is not will Al Franken become Minnesota's next Senator, the question is when. A final order from the Minnesota ECC should be handed down shortly and then the inevitable Coleman appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court will need to be decided. Coleman has no chance of winning imo. Then the interesting part comes - will Minnesota's Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty certify Franken's election? Will a federal court (either a federal district court or the SCOTUS) enjoin the issuance of such certificate? Will Senate Republicans try to block Franken's entry into the US Senate? My guesses? Maybe (if Pawlenty does this, he is running for President in 2012), no and no.

Speaking for me only

Politico is reporting that Republicans are pushing Norm Coleman to go to the Supreme Court with his Bush v. Gore argument:

Top Republicans are encouraging Coleman to be as litigious as possible and take his fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if he loses this round, believing that an elongated court fight is worth it if they can continue to deny Democrats the 59th Senate seat that Franken would represent. And in pushing a possible Supreme Court conclusion, Republicans are raising case history that makes Democrats shudder: Bush v. Gore.

I shudder at the mention of Bush v. Gore, but not because I fear its impact in this case. I shudder because it was the most blatant example of a lack of judicial honesty that I have seen. More . . .

The Supreme Court of Minnesota denied Al Franken's petition (PDF) that the Governor and Secretary of State be ordered to issue a certificate of election. The key to the decision is this passage, imo: [More...]

Via Kos, Republicans arguing for expansive statutory interpretation and Dems for strict construction:

Coleman lawyer James Langdon said that the Franken team "would have you sit in a vacuum, strictly interpreting a statute[]" . . . The Franken camp argued the opposite -- that Minnesota laws are very specific about what kinds of ballots are to be counted . . . "The contestants [Coleman] talk a lot about what they wish the law might be, but not what the law is," said lead Franken lawyer Marc Elias. "And the law is what it is, and has strict requirements that must be adhered to."

Without knowing more, I must admit I prefer the Coleman argument, especially when it comes to counting votes. Beyond that, if a consistent standard is applied, does anyone doubt Franken will still win? I am not thrilled with people not actually parties to the dispute letting their concern for voters suddenly disappear. Franken should be arguing for consistent expansive standards imo. I find his reversal the more depressing. I already expect the worst from Republicans.

Speaking for me only

Norm Coleman has expanded his search for votes: