Former Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-Minn.) legal team on Friday filed in the state Supreme Court the final brief of its effort to get the result of Minnesota’s Senate race overturned.
The case is set for a June 1 hearing. Coleman’s campaign was filing a reply to a brief filed by Democrat Al Franken’s lawyers on Monday.
In Coleman’s reply brief, his lawyers argue that different standards were applied to absentee ballots across the state, violating the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.
Coleman is seeking to get 4,400 rejected absentee ballots included in the vote count, which favors Franken by 312 votes.
The Republican’s legal team makes the case that a February ruling from a lower court imposed a standard on absentee ballots that, if applied to other ballots, would render many of them invalid.
Coleman’s team wants the case sent back to the lower court with instructions to include more absentee ballots.
Even if all of the 4,400 absentee ballots wound up included, though, that would not guarantee that Coleman would win. Instead, the ballots would be added to the total, and Coleman would have to hope for a big enough swing.
Still, his legal team noted that they come from friendly areas.
“If you look at the precincts from which those votes come, which is about as reliable (a measure) as you can get, then they come overwhelmingly from precincts that Norm Coleman carried,” attorney Ben Ginsberg said.
There remains a question about whether Franken would be seated if he prevails in the state Supreme Court.
Franken needs a certificate of election to be seated, and state law says a certificate cannot be signed while an appeal is still taking place in state courts.
But Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) has indicated he might not sign an election certificate even if Franken wins at the state level, as Coleman’s campaign has suggested it would appeal to federal court.
Franken’s campaign in its brief asked the state Supreme Court to instruct the governor and secretary of state, a Democrat, to sign the election certificate once it decides on the case.
Coleman’s reply brief did not respond to that aspect of Franken’s brief. Ginsberg noted that the language was similar to a motion rejected by the state Supreme Court earlier this year.
“The court will do what the court does, and that’s fine by us,” Ginsberg said.