2736606934_eaa79401bdAl Franken is almost certain to prevail in the U.S. Senate election contest currently before the Minnesota Supreme Court. That’s the consensus from legal analysts following oral arguments in the lawsuit filed by Norm Coleman contesting a three-judge panel’s ruling that he lost the election by 312 votes.

Edward Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University who has been closely tracking the case, provides a lengthy analysis of Monday’s arguments. He criticizes Coleman’s legal team for its handling of the case, as well as the arguments made by Joe Friedberg, the Republican’s lead attorney.

“If the Minnesota Supreme Court rules for Franken, it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that the court inevitably must be biased against Coleman,” Foley concludes. “On the contrary, the trial court unanimously ruled against Coleman and displayed no bias or unfairness. In the end, impartial jurists reasonably might conclude that Franken has the better case on the merits. Or, alternatively, the conclusion might be that Coleman’s attorneys failed to put before the court a winning case that perhaps, with a different strategy, they could have made.”

Hamline University political science and law professor David Schultz, who was in the courtroom for Monday’s arguments, reaches a similar conclusion.  He notes that the justices were particularly vigorous in questioning Friedberg’s framing of the case and that they seemed to find the evidence assembled by Coleman’s legal team lacking. “Prediction: 5-0 for Franken with a decision by the July 4 holiday,” Schultz concludes.

Rick Hasen, a law professor at Loyola Law School, is almost as dismissive of Coleman’s prospects. “There’s no question that Coleman’s side got much tougher question than Franken’s side, and based upon oral argument I would not be surprised to see a unanimous decision in favor of Franken in a relatively short time frame (within two weeks–maybe sooner),” he writes. “I counted at least three of the five Justices who were much more willing to accept Franken’s arguments than Coleman’s arguments, and who asked Coleman’s side much more difficult questions.”

Finally Guy Uriel-Charles, a Duke University law professor, also predicts a unanimous victory for Franken. “What’s remarkable about the whole oral argument is that there were very few questions, if any, asked on what to do next — what is the standard that you want us to apply,” Charles told the Star Tribune.