Although we lost the election yesterday, the results of the campaign have much to be proud of. As in 2008, our campaign again put a hurt on the DFL stronghold in House District 50-A, breaking open the fortress perception of invincibility.
I don't know how you get from a 19.5 percentage point loss to "breaking open the fortress perception of invincibility," but than again I'm not Tim Utz.
In a sort of "where are they now" fashion we'll catch up with Mr. Utz, who these days can be found tilting at redistricting windmills. I am unsure of what outcome he expects, but his reasoning is pure as Tea!
Because the constitution itself is at stake Tim Utz filed an amicus request with the Special Redistricting Panel pleading for someone to please think of the constitution:
The applicant has no interest in either party plea of the case before the court; but that the Minnesota State Constitution will subjugate the three elected branches of state government to the "Rule of Law" where the Minnesota Supreme Court will injunction the Minnesota Legislature to fulfill their Constitutional mandated re-districting obligations post hast thus providing Constitutional stability in our communities.
Obviously Mr. Utz, you didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before you wrote that.
Feeling the need to let the court know that this nutcase wasn't in anyway involved with their side the lawyers representing the Republican plaintiffs filed a response to Mr. Utz's amicus request.
Remember, Mr. Utz is also a Republican:
Mr. Utz's request to revisit a resolved issue is inconsistent with the purpose of amicus participation. Mr. Utz requests a form of personal relief - an injunction requiring the legislature to reconvene - that is not sought by any party or intervenor and therefore is not available to non-party amicus.
Even better is the response by the Special Redistricting Panel itself:
Because the Special Redistricting Panel is well aware of the constitutional roles of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches in performing redistricting, we conclude that the proposed brief in not consistent with the purpose of amicus participation.
In other words, take a hike bozo. The Special Redistricting Panel then goes on to explain in great detail exactly how we got to this point and why all of this is in fact exactly what the "rule of law," as Mr. Utz put it, calls for.
I still don't understand what he was trying to accomplish, other than to insert himself into a process that he clearly has no reason being a part of, but it's sure fun to watch him fail!