After the Minnesota State Canvassing Board requested today that counties sort through absentee ballots to find any that were wrongly rejected, U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman’s campaign pledged to petition the state Supreme Court for uniform sorting standards and warned of “Florida-style confusion.”

Complaining in a statement this afternoon that “[A]dvocates for the Franken campaign stood outside [the meeting] with signs reminiscent of Florida in 2000,” Coleman attorney Fritz Knaak asserted:

[T]here is [sic] no longer any uniform, statutory levels or standards by which legally rejected absentee ballots are being considered and reviewed in Minnesota.”

Franken attorney Marc Elias responded in a conference call with reporters:

“There is a uniform counting standard in Minnesota: It is the election code of Minnesota. … They are hoping to run out the clock.  … I don’t know what the Supreme Court or the state would say except, ‘Read the election code.’”

Knaak anticipated that response in a letter sent to the Canvassing Board after the meeting:

Although Minnesota law is clear on the grounds upon which absentee ballots may be rejected, a strong likelihood exists that these standards will be interpreted differently by each county that engages in this process …

“The Coleman people will try to spin you,” Elias said, advising reporters to ignore what his counterparts in Coleman’s campaign say and pay attention to the legal filings.

They are seeking an injunction. They are seeking to stop counties from counting ballots. … Desperate times call for desperate measures. They have internally realized what we have been saying: that Al Franken is leading by four votes.

Elias said the move represented a “change in perspective” for Knaak, pointing to Knaak’s reported Nov. 26 statements that the number of wrongly rejected ballots (now estimated by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to be between 1,000–2,000 statewide) would be “miniscule” and break both ways, and that such ballots should be counted.

Asked about Supreme Court Associate Justice G. Barry Anderson’s opinion at the Canvassing Board meeting that the wrongly rejected ballots — the so-called “fifth pile” — would in many counties spawn many sub-piles, Elias said he interpreted that as part of the “thinking out loud” the board members engaged in before coming to their unanimous decisions.

But it was a tack that Knaak attacked with alacrity in his statement:

… [A]s one State Canvassing Board member pointed out today, it’s no longer just one fifth pile. It’s a fifth pile with subpiles from A to Z with no uniform standard for determining which, if any, legally rejected absentee ballots ought to be included in a pile.

But Elias was elated anyway. “It’s a good day,” he said.

Here is the resolution that passed the State Canvassing Board by unanimous vote today:

To facilitate the review of challenged ballots, the State Recount Official is directed to open the challenged ballot envelopes to remove those challenged ballots which have been withdrawn by each of the two candidates or their representatives. The State Recount Official shall report to the Board the allocation of votes resulting from the withdrawal of these challenges.

The withdrawn challenged ballots shall be sealed into separately labeled envelopes for return to the jurisdiction from whence they were received.

The State Recount Official will arrange for this process to occur in an appropriate room and at an appropriate time and shall inform the candidates and the public of the time and location so that they may observe if they so desire. The State Recount Official may designate any member of the staff of the Office of the Secretary of State to assist in this task.

The remaining challenged ballots shall be sealed into separately labeled envelopes by jurisdiction from whence they were received and be kept secure for review by the Board.