First, Coleman must pay some of Frankenâ??s fees for the court challenge that he just lost, so every dollar that he gets, a portion will end up funding Franken. (There was some talk that Franken may ask that Coleman put money in escrow to fund for the potential loss at the MN-SC, but that story has gone quiet.) On top of all of Colemanâ??s legal problems, he has lived beyond his means (remodeling and mortgaging his home so that his loans are now more than the accessed property valuation) — he even has student loans for his kids. Considering the significant reduction on the Favorability poll question, his political future in Minnesota is dead. His future lies on K Street â?¦ just as Frankenâ??s July television commercial complained of the revolving door from the Senate to paid lobbyist, Coleman will cash in.

Second, the case really has two key questions that the MN-SC could address (others will be easily dismissed.)
The first one is the missing 132 ballots from Minneapolis. The Election Contest Court sidestepped the issue in their ruling. It needs to be addressed. From a materiality aspect, Franken would have still won without these ballots. However, by allowing the Election night preliminary count to be used sets a dangerous precedent — one that is in opposition to Schwab â??v- Sparks. This is important since there is now a case in Kentucky where a judge and election workers are accused of scheme in which altered the voterâ??s ballots were used. If it becomes an accepted practice that the election night count is used when ballots are missing, it only encourages the destruction of fraudulent ballots. Can you imagine if this would have happened in Carver County which produced Colemanâ??s largest margin â?¦ the Dems would be claiming foul.
The missing ballot question aside, the concern is that the MN-SC knows that their ruling on the Equal Protection question may be cited in other state cases. How they consider the Bush-v-Gore will be important. IMO, since MN considers absentee voting a privilege and those voters who may have had their ballots rejected could vote on Election Day, this eliminates this argument BUT I am not one of the justices. And thatâ??s the real concern, it falls down not to who are the judges â?¦ and considering the inclination toward the Republican Party for some of these judges may make our votes irrelevant.