It's been pretty quiet on the Coleman v. Franken front, as we wait for the Minnesota Election Contest Court to issue its ruling. What's taking so long? Any bets on whether the ruling will be announced by Friday afternoon?

A quick Google turned up a website that has been following the case. Today's update from Campaign Silo:

It's Thursday, and we're still waiting for the Election Contest Court's rulings on the case, so here are some more news items to keep us occupied.

The Senate recount contest isn't the only legal action Norm's been involved in recently.  MinnPost's Cynthia Dizikes reminds us that the Kazeminy lawsuits are still very much out there and lying in wait for the former Senator Coleman once he's done burning through his donors' money here in Saint Paul.  

Meanwhile, Joe Bodell over at the Minnesota Progressive Project is curious as to why Norm's been spending so much time in the Election Contest Court -- every single day, in fact -- even as Al Franken has not.  Bearing in mind that Norm is a lawyer, though not a currently active one, Bodell puts forth the possibility that Norm might be appearing on his own behalf as some sort of consultant, and racking up fees for doing so.  This is just the sort of thing that Franken's petition to have a losing Coleman pay for various expenses would uncover quite nicely.  It's also the sort of thing that would irritate Norm's donors nearly as much as his cavalier handling of their credit-card data.

Yesterday's update had an interesting note on the much-hyped GOP plan to take it to the Supreme Court, should Franken be declared the winner:

As Eric Black of MinnPost reported two weeks ago (and I referenced here), the Minnesota Supreme Court's justices have in their rulings on this case, been consistently referring to the end of the case being when the state courts are done with it -- in other words, once they, as members of the highest state court in Minnesota, have reached their decision on this case, the certificate question is over, even if Coleman appeals to the Federal level.  

So guess what?  The Republicans can throw all the money they want at this -- and really, I wish they would, because all the legal activity in St. Paul and all the spending generated by the hordes of lawyers in town for the past five months has helped the local economy more than the RNC ever did -- and it won't matter one bit for Normy because once the state Supremes flush this contest and appeal down the toilet, Al Franken gets his election certificate.

So yes, it's almost over, and Coleman can look forward soon to growing back those lovely locks from his hippie days. Of course, there is still the appeal to the State Supreme Court that we will have to sit through, but Coleman's burden looks even heavier if it goes that far. Here's an interesting breakdown of Coleman's claim to equal protection by Richard L. Hasen in Slate:

When the court hearing the contest finally rules, the losing side--which most people think will be Coleman--is expected to appeal to the state Supreme Court. There, Coleman will need more than an argument that the lower court counted the ballots wrong, a decision the state Supreme Court will not want to second-guess. So Coleman's lawyers and the Republican leadership are already previewing their backup argument: that the equal-protection principles of Bush v. Gore require the courts either to count more illegal absentee votes cast for him or to order a new election in the state.

The Republican leadership has professed a renewed love for Bush v. Gore. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently urged Coleman to fight on to the state Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, declaring, "We all remember Bush v. Gore." Sen. Lindsey Graham told Politico that "from what I can tell, there are legal issues well worth taking up in the [Supreme] Court. ... I think the whole Bush v. Gore--using the same standards to count votes is a big issue."

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled that Franken cannot get his certificate of election until the state election contest is resolved. To drag out the fight even longer, Sen. John Cornyn suggested that Coleman should bring a parallel suit in federal court should he lose in the state courts. All of this, of course, helps Republicans delay the day when the Senate has 59 Democrats.

Turning this debacle into a Bush v. Gore debacle may be appealing to the GOP, but the strategy is filled with so many inherent problems that it may be nothing but a right wing pipe dream. Hansen's article is well worth reading in full, but as he sums it up:

It seems unlikely that either of these Bush v. Gore arguments would fare well in court.

***

In the end, Coleman doesn't have a strong equal-protection argument. Then again, most of us thought George W. Bush didn't, either.

.