Minnesota Recount Trial - Franken and Coleman Rest Case - Senate Election Decision In Hands Of Judges From Now On

The closest and most costly election in Minnesota history may soon be coming to an end!

After election day, Norm Coleman held a 215 vote lead, triggering an automatic recount under Minnesota law.

After the hand recount of nearly 3 million ballots cast, Al Franken ended up on top by 215 votes.

Norm Coleman filed an election challenge in the Minnesota courts. Now after nearly 8 weeks of testimony before a 3 judge panel from all 3 of Minnesota's major political parties, the Coleman and Franken sides have presented their evidence, and have rested their case as of this morning.

For this trial Coleman brought in high powered attorney Ben Ginsberg. Does the name sound familiar? It should, Ginsberg was the same lead attorney who developed George Bush's legal strategy in Bush vs. Gore in 2000.

From the way the Senate recount trial has played out, the main thrust of Colemans case is that differences in the way the recount was handled in various polling places, is in violation of the Constitutions equal protection clause. Which is the exact same argument the Bush lawyers made before the Supreme Court in 2000. Coleman is asking that the Minnesota election results be "set aside", and a new election be held.

During the Minnesota recount trial, from their rulings, the 3 judge panel did not seem to be buying the equal protection argument, in fact Ginsberg said as much last night. Court observers believe that Norm Coleman won't win this case before the 3 judge panel. And it's unlikely that the Minnesota Supreme Courts would overturn the decision of the 3 judge panel on appeal.

Many believe Colemans only hope is to get the Minnesota recount case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

If so, you would have the exact same laywer, making the exact same argument, before the exact same court with the exact same judges that decided Bush vs. Gore in 2000.

Would the Supreme Court decide the same way again? Legal observers believe it's a long shot. That the Supreme Court would be loath to delve into election politics in this manner again, like with their highly unpopular decision in 2000.

Also, in Bush vs. Gore, where the Supreme Court effectively stopped the recount in Florida under the equal protection argument, they specifically wrote in their decision, that Bush vs. Gore was not to become legal precedent, and not to apply to any other elections.

Why did the Supreme Court say the Bush vs. Gore stood on it's own? Because if you say that slightly different procedures used at different polling places is a violation of the Constitutions equal protection clause, then pretty any election could be challenged by any candidate anywhere in the United States. This would open up a can of worms where there would be endless election challenges all over the place.

It's expected this case could move quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 3 judge panel having heard all the evidence is expected to give it's decision soon, possibly as soon as today. If Coleman appeals, by Minnesota statute, the case will be expedited to the Minnesota Supreme Court, where it is unlikely to be overturned. So many believe the case will find itself in short order before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is no longer in the hands of the voters, their is no more testimony to be given. On appeal, it is only a review of the lower courts decisions, and oral arguments by the lawyers. The outcome of the Minnesota Senate election between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, is all in the hands of judges from now on.