Since the possibility of a recount emerged a week ago, Republican Tom Emmer and the GOP have been questioning election irregularities and casting doubt over Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s ability to administer the recount.

But Tuesday afternoon the recount team for Mark Dayton pushed back, suggesting Emmer has an insurmountable task in making up the more than 8,500 votes he needs to overtake Dayton. Research released by the Dayton campaign shows how recounts across the country have fared over the last decade.

“There have been 18 statewide recounts in United States over the last decade,” wrote Denise Cardinal, spokeswoman for the Dayton recount team. “Of those, the average vote margin change was just 296 votes. That change represents a … shift of just 0.027%. In this race, Mark’s lead currently stands at 0.415%, which means that the vote margin change in this race would need to be more than 15 times greater than the average margin swing in statewide recounts during the last decade.”

Dayton’s team noted that the largest swing in a statewide recount came in Vermont where a recount changed the margin by 0.11 percent. Dayton’s lead currently stands at just over 0.4 percent.

“In other words, the largest percentage swing in the last decade is still about four times smaller than what would be needed to flip this election,” said Cardinal.

In addition, of the 18 recounts in the last decade, only three recounts changed the outcome of the race: Washington State governor’s race in 2004, the Vermont auditor’s race in 2006 and the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota in 2008.

And the average change in vote margin in those 18 recounts was 0.027 percent compared to the 0.41 percent that Emmer must overcome.

Vermont’s recount was a special case, and the 0.11 percent swing came about because of the state’s small population and errors in hand tallies. Cardinal notes that Minnesota is much bigger.

“For states that had a total number of votes in excess of 2 million, the average margin change in percentage terms was just 0.0156%. Minnesota fits this category,” she said. “So, in comparison to states of similar size and vote totals, this race would need to have a margin swing that is more than 26 times greater than the average margin swing in the past decade’s statewide recounts.”

Norm and Laurie Coleman on the campaign trail last this fall (Paul Demko, Minnesota Independent)

Norm Coleman used media coverage of his dealings with friend and benefactor Nasser Kazeminy to argue to the Federal Election Commission that he should be able to spend campaign cash to fight two lawsuits that implicate him in a cash-funneling scheme.

Coleman’s plea uses the media in two ways: first, as proof that the lawsuits — and thus his expenses — are political, not personal; and second, to argue that campaign funds should pay for lawyers’ time dealing with media inquiries into the matter.

Coleman’s filing (8.4 MB pdf) includes copies of two Minnesota Independent stories among seven clips from media outlets:

Minnesota Independent, “Advocacy group calls for investigations in ‘DonorGate,’” Nov. 12, 2008 (Exhibit F)

Minnesota Independent, “Texas lawsuit naming Coleman should proceed quickly, lawyer says,” Jan. 14, 2009 (Exhibit D)

TPM Muckraker, “Taking stock of the Coleman-Kazeminy charges,” Nov. 13, 2008 (Exhibit A)

Star Tribune, “Money and past bond Coleman, Kazeminy,” Nov. 10, 2008 (Exhibit B)

Star Tribune, “Group wants probe of lawsuits that mention Coleman,” Nov. 13, 2008 (Exhibit E)

Minnesota Public Radio, “Coleman: Allegations should be investigated,” Nov. 12, 2008 (Exhibit G)

Associated Press, “Texas filing seeks to put off suit tied to Coleman,” as it appeared Jan. 9, 2009 at startribune.com (Exhibit C)

These news stories are offered as evidence of the political context of the lawsuits and the complaints they engendered. Establishing that the suits and complaints are political is key to making the case that Coleman’s legal expenses are directly tied to his duties as senator rather than a personal matter.

This is the summary Coleman gives:

Over the last several months, Senator Coleman’s campaign and legal counsel have been forced to (1) respond to allegations arising from baseless complaints filed by Senator Coleman’s political opponents; (2) monitor ongoing litigation related to these topics, prepare for possible involvement in such litigation, and preserve documents thaqt may prove relevant to the litigation; and (3) provide responses and information to the media on these topics.

Coleman asserts that responding to media inquiries accounts for more than 10 percent of his lawyers’ bills, although information from the campaign about the lawsuits and ensuing complaints has been minimal. And repeated calls and emails from the Minnesota Independent to the Coleman campaign, for example, have never been returned.

Again Tuesday, the Minnesota Independent’s phone message and an email to the Coleman campaign went unanswered. The email asked:

Why did it take five months for the Coleman campaign to formally file an advisory opinion request with the FEC? What is the dollar amount of expenses listed in the table in the FEC filing? When were the costs involving responses to media inquiries incurred? Has the campaign already spent funds on the purposes described in the request?

Others have questions too, dating back to last year, when several of the complaints filed in the matter with the FEC, the Senate ethics committee and the FBI were lodged.

“We just wanted to know what the deal was,” says Denise Cardinal, executive director of Alliance for a Better Minnesota, one of the groups whose complaints Coleman cited in his FEC filing. “[Coleman's campaign] told us they had asked for this. … There is still no clarity. Whose fault is that?”

The FEC ordinarily responds to candidates’ requests for advisory opinions on matters of election law within 60 days, sometimes granting requests for expedited consideration — a request Coleman didn’t make.

So it seems likely the Minnesota Supreme Court will rule on Coleman’s appeal of his election-contest loss to Franken before the FEC rules on Coleman’s request for an opinion on election law.

Norm and Laurie Coleman at a 2008 campaign event (Paul Demko)

Norm Coleman is facing massive legal bills.

The former senator took another substantial financial hit yesterday when the three-judge panel presiding over the U.S. Senate contest ruled that Al Franken won the election. The judges also ordered Coleman to pay for court costs accrued during the trial. While this does not include attorney’s fees, it does cover administrative expenses such as witness transportation and copy costs. Given that the seven-week case included 19,000 pages of legal pleadings, 1,717 individual exhibits, and testimony from 142 witnesses, it would seem that such costs could be substantial.

In addition, as indicated in a March 2 ruling, Coleman will be responsible for some of Franken’s legal bills. This punishment stems from Coleman’s lawyers failure to properly disclose contacts with a potential trial witness. It’s impossible to say exactly what the financial damage will turn out to be. Marc Elias, Franken’s lead recount attorney, declined to speculate on how much money this might entail during a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon.

Coleman has had a team of high-profile lawyers on retainer for months to fight the U.S. Senate contest. Determining exactly how much this litigation will ultimately cost is impossible at this point. But Nate Silver recently estimated the damage to be around $145,000 per week. (Coleman’s first quarter FEC report, which should shed some light on the matter, is due tomorrow.)

What’s more, Coleman faces seemingly substantial legal bills stemming from a pair of lawsuits related to his relationship with longtime associate Nasser Kazeminy. The former senator said back in December that he would ask the the Federal Election Commission whether he could utilize his campaign funds to cover attorney’s fees related to allegations that Kazeminy attempted to funnel $75,000 to the then-sitting senator. But according to FEC records, Coleman never followed through on seeking what’s known as an “advisory opinion.”

Roll Call (subscription only) recently attempted to get an explanation from the Coleman campaign as to why they failed to seek FEC clearance for using campaign funds to pay his legal bills. But repeated phone calls and emails were ignored.

Coleman is under no obligation to seek explicit permission for the fundraising scheme, but legislators often seek guidance from the agency in controversial matters. Last week, for instance, Rep. Elton Gallegly, asked the FEC to clarify whether he could use campaign funds to upgrade the security system on his Southern California home. The reason: a stalker was harassing his wife after an altercation on the campaign trail.

In January, Alliance for a Better Minnesota filed a complaint with the FEC arguing that Coleman’s use of campaign funds to pay legal bills unrelated to election matters ran afoul of the agency’s rules. While the FEC acknowledged receiving the complaint, there has been no further communication on the matter, according to Denise Cardinal, executive director of the liberal advocacy group.

The allegations contained in the pair of lawsuits are still very much alive. A second person involved in the matter recently provided sworn testimony that Kazeminy ordered $75,000 funneled to a Minneapolis insurance firm where Coleman’s wife works. While Coleman is not a party to the cases, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly is also looking into the allegations. The former senator recently refused to answer when asked if he’d been interviewed by the law enforcement agency. Coleman has hired Doug Kelley to represent him in the matter, while his wife has tapped Earl Gray to watch out for her interests. Both are former federal prosecutors turned high-profile defense attorneys. They undoubtedly also charge a pretty penny for their services.

It remains a mystery why Coleman failed to get approval from the FEC to cover these bills with campaign funds. But if the agency ultimately determines that Coleman must pay for the attorneys’ fees himself, it would certainly add to his personal financial troubles.