This is fairly precisely correct. Should Coleman (or Franken) appeal the Election Contest Court decision, it would be to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The winner of that appeal is certified. Should the loser wish to appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court would bundle up all the evidence of the court record and the election recount, and send it to the Senate. The Senate would be able to request any and all ballots (should it want to see nearly 3 million pieces of paper) and the Rules Committee could conduct its own review. But Chuck Schumer is chair of the Rules Committee, and I suspect would make short shrift of any Coleman appeal.

It would not get into Federal Court unless Norm were to bring a seperate cause of action in the Federal District Court -- and then appeal any decisions upward in that court system. The state court process cannot be appealed into the Federal Courts unless there is a Federal Issue -- and thus far Coleman has not raised anything of merit that could be the basis for Federal Court action. His lawyers have not gone over to the Federal Court House to file anything.

The current MN law that prohibits the execution of a certificate of election until the full Election process is complete only speaks to Minnesota State processes -- in other words, the election, the post election canvass, the recount and determination by the State Canvass Board, the Election Contest (currently in process) and the possibility of appeal to the State Supreme Court. The State issues the election certificate on the completion of this process, regardless of any other action Coleman might bring in Federal Court. An appeal to the Federal System would not stop the certification, as the assumption in State Law is that any challenge following our process would be brought in the Senate under the Constitutional provision that the Senate is the final judge of election of its own members.

In his post decision newsconference, Elias, Franken's Lawyer called attention to that part of yesterday's decision that raised the burden of proof on the Coleman legal team. The Election Court said it would only consider ballots that were legally cast, and it is Coleman's duty to present that argument for any ballot he wishes considered. It again dealt with the "right" and "privilege" matter -- casting an absentee ballot is a privilege, and must meet the exact and strict standards of Minnesota Law. I expect the court will speed things up by requiring Coleman's side to present only such ballots, and perhaps to brief them in advance -- specifically indicate why this ballot met the strict standards, and thus was legally cast. That will massively speed things up. I think the judges will be a bit pissed if Coleman's side comes in with examples that don't meet this clear standard.

Likewise, Franken's side will need to review their 770 or so ballots, and select only those that meet this strict standard for presentation in their case. Their pile will be thus significantly reduced. In effect the court will need to also require Coleman to review the ballots he has already introduced via Ramsey, Washington, Anoka, Pine and Dakota County -- and Plymouth in Hennepin County, and eliminate those that do not meet this strict standard, and argue for those that meet it. I think very few already in evidence will survive this standard. So rather quickly we get the piles down to a hundred or so that are, in strict terms, legally cast ballots, and then perhaps we get an order to count them -- or a recognition that no counting will change the outcome of the election recount itself. Thus end of Contest Process.

So Light at the end of the tunnel -- maybe by the date of the State of the Union Address.

1. I NEVER claimed you said you didn't want another Dem in the Senate so ditch that straw man argument.

2. I correctly pointed out that you said you can't understand why we're all so anxious to see "the stand up" in the Senate.

3. Yes, you said you wanted a reliable democratic vote in the Senate but . . . you didn't want that vote to come from a "fool" like Franken "who goes on stage wearing tights" impersonating Mick Jagger.

Here are the only available choices: Franken or Coleman. Since you don't want that "fool" Franken, that leaves only Coleman. Reminder: Coleman is not a reliable Democratic vote. Therefore, you'd rather have a slimy republican than a Democrat who wrote comedy and performed skits.

4. Given your brilliant reasoning as illustrated in #3, tell me--who's the fool?