Nothing brings together Republicans and DFLers at the Minnesota Capitol like bong water. A new bipartisan bill would exclude a specific amount of water from a bong, or water pipe, from the weight of drugs calculated when someone is charged with possession. Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a similar bill last year after legislators overwhelmingly passed the measure in response to a high profile Minnesota Supreme Court case.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that because Minnesota’s drug laws are vague, bong water could be added when measuring the weight of drugs in an accused person’s possession. The threshold for considering bong water is 25 grams, or just under one ounce.

Under the proposed bill, sponsored by three Republicans and three Democrats, law enforcement could not consider less than 4 ounces or close to 100 grams.

The bill reads, “the weight of fluid used in a water pipe may not be considered in measuring the weight of a mixture except in cases where the mixture contains four or more fluid ounces of fluid.”

The bill is sponsored by Reps. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis; Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder; Steve Smith, R-Mound; Debra Hilstrom, DFL-Brooklyn Center; Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul; Greg Davids, R-Preston.

Ninety minutes after hearing oral arguments, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a petition by the Republican Party of Minnesota and Tom Emmer’s gubernatorial campaign to force counties to undergo a reconciliation in search of “phantom votes.” The Emmer team argued that election officials improperly counted votes on election night, but the opposition argued that they have followed the letter of the law.

The Supreme Court issued an order denying Emmer’s petition and said it would release its opinion later.

Diane Bratvold, an attorney for Emmer, argued that by law election judges should reconcile the number of ballots cast be reconciled with the sign-in roster at precincts.

All sides contend the law on counting ballots is outdated or unclear; current statute says ballots should be reconciled with signed “voter certificates” which are no longer used.

To make the process clear, the Secretary of State’s office has asked elections officials to use voter receipts — slips of paper handed to election judges after voters have signed in on polling place rosters. That was issued as a “rule” by the office, and has been in effect since 1982.

“Does the statute control the number of lawfully cast ballots or does the rule cited by the Secretary of State?” she asked. “Our position is clear: The voters sign as provided by statute not voter receipts as provided by the rule are the cornerstone for determining the number of lawfully cast ballots.”

Justice Alan C. Page said, “You only get a receipt if you’ve signed the register, so it strikes me that the practical effect is that you end up with the same number either way.”

“The trouble I’m having with your argument is that in order to get where you want us to go, it seems to me that what you are essentially saying is that the phrases voter certificate and election register in 240c20 are ambiguous,” said Justice Paul H. Anderson. “Your opponents, I think, argue that the phrases are obsolete.”

And that’s just what Mark Elias, attorney for DFLer Mark Dayton, said.

“I think that it is out of date and I think regulations are used to fill in where there is a statute that is either ambiguous or out of date,” he said.

One of Bratvold’s main arguments was that the legislature intended signatures to be counted with ballots, but Elias said that’s not the case. “It’s the signature that is crucial and there’s not signature on the voter receipt.

“The signatures issue is a bit of a red herring,” Elias said. “The purpose of having signatures serves an anti-fraud purpose. The purpose of the provisions we are talking about now are not about fraud, they are about counting.

“You aren’t going to count a pile of paper because it has a signature. It really is irrelevant to the issue today: What is the most effective way for a an official to conduct a ballot reconciliation in a polling place.”

Elias also added that the time to complain about the ballot counting procedures was before the election.

“The time to challenge the voting process is before the election,” he said. “I would urge this court to look at the fact… that this regulation has been used for a long time.”

He noted that Emmer had lawyers available and “this rule appears on the books. It’s not secret.”

Ultimately, the court agreed and denied Emmer’s petition shortly after oral arguments concluded. The decision means that the State Canvassing Board can meet on Tuesday to begin deliberation on the recount between Emmer and Dayton. Dayton currently leads by a margin of more than 8,700 votes.

The full hearing is available at TheUptake.

In a petition filed by the Republican Party of Minnesota and Tom Emmer’s gubernatorial campaign with the Minnesota Supreme Court, election judges from around the state submitted affidavits stating that reconciliation between registered voters and ballots cast was not done correctly in their precincts. The GOP said improper record keeping on election night resulted in thousands of “phantom votes” while the Dayton campaign called the complaint a delay tactic. The vast majority of the witnesses in the complaint are Republican activists or are connected to the tea party movement.

Joel Burns, listed in the complaint as a GOP witness, was chair of the campaign of Republican Deanna Boss who ran for the state House in Minneapolis’ district 62B, according to campaign filings. Boss is a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots of the Twin Cities.

John Larkin is another witness for the GOP with connections to the tea party movement: He founded the tea party group The 56 Club, which is based in Eagan.

Glydewell Burdick co-chairs the Senate District 44 Republicans in the Golden Valley area and is on the Republican Party of Minnesota Health Care Coalition.

Another witness for the GOP serves on that health care coalition is Diana Bratlie, the recipient of the Elephant Remembers award at the 2nd Congressional District Ronald Reagan Dinner in 2007 and a paid researcher for Rep. John Kline’s re-election campaign in 2008. The UpTake published a story on Thursday questioning Bratlie’s truthfulness.

She was also a delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Albin Dittli of Minneapolis attended a state GOP convention in 2005.

Several of the witnesses in the GOP petition to the Supreme Court are GOP donors. John Carney was a financial donor to Mark Kennedy’s unsuccessful campaign against Amy Klobuchar in 2006. Betty Walton’s husband donated to the Emmer campaign for governor multiple times in recent months according to Emmer’ campaign finance reports.

And several of the witnesses in Bloomington share a connection with a Republican candidate. Barbara Sutter is the treasurer for the Pat Mazorol Volunteer Committee and was paid by Mazorol’s successful campaign against one-term DFL Rep. Paul Rosenthal in the Edina-Bloomington area.

Financing that campaign was fellow witness Theresa Jacobson. Jacobson and her husband gave money to Mazorol’s campaign this summer, according to campaign finance documents.

Only two of the GOP’s witnesses seemed to have no connection to the GOP on paper: Jill Ingvalson and Tim Reisdorf.

“What this does is enhance the suspicion that this is really based on political factors,” said Prof. David Schultz of Hamline University. “From a legal point of view, it suggests the petition doesn’t have much merit.”

He added that the petition to the Supreme Court is on shaky legal ground as it is. He cited the legal concept of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which means the GOP should take its complaint to the proper government units before a court will hear their case. The Supreme Court may reject the petition under that rationale, he said.

Schultz said the timing of the petition as well as the GOP’s allegations of fraud create the appearance that the GOP is gearing up for a bigger lawsuit.

“I think they are trying to establish doubt over the election results that could lead up to a lawsuit once the recount has concluded,” he said. “They seem to be building an ideological case for a court challenge after December.”

The Republican Party of Minnesota and Tom Emmer’s gubernatorial campaign filed a petition Wednesday with the Minnesota Supreme Court alleging that more people voted in the 2010 election than registered. The GOP claims it has information from election judges who “did not witness” other election judges counting precinct sign in sheets and that “tens of thousands”of  “phantom votes” exist. The recount team of Mark Dayton said that votes have been reconciled twice in post-election reporting, and that the GOP is engaged in an eleventh-hour “Hail Mary” to postpone the recount process.

“We’re receiving reports today from election judges stating they did not reconcile the ballots cast with the number of signatures on the polling roster on Election Night 2010,” said GOP chair Tony Sutton. “These reports raise concerns about the instructions and written guides given to election judges by the Secretary of State’s office as to the statutorily required reconciliation procedures for Election Day but more importantly, raise serious questions about the integrity of the result of the election.”

Added Republican Party of Minnesota Deputy Chairman Michael Brodkorb, “Our petition today is simply asking the Supreme Court to confirm that the number of votes matches the total number of voters on Election Day, as required by state law and that election officials follow the clear statutory remedy for the removal of phantom votes before the results are certified.”

Dayton recount spokesman Ken Martin said the petition to the Supreme Court amounted to nothing more than a “Hail Mary” and that the timing shows that the ultimate goal is to delay the recount.

“There are six days now until the State Canvassing Board meets and in the eleventh-hour the Emmer campaign launched a hail mary pass,” said Martin. He said there is no way for the Supreme Court to rule on the petition and for a reconciliation to occur before that meeting.

“We respect their right to ask for info, but my question is why now? And if they are doing it now six days before the State Canvassing Board meets, does it in effect mean it’s gong to delay the process? And that’s our greatest concern,” said Martin.

He said that the reconciliation occurred on election night when election judges are required by law to count the number of votes cast and match them to the number of voters signed into each precinct. If there are more votes than voters signed in, judges are required to discard that number of votes at random.

Martin added that during the county canvassing, which is also required by law, the votes are again reconciled with the voter sign-ins.

“This whole process has worked,” he said. “We live in a state that around the country election observers have a great sense that the Minnesota system is the finest in the nation.”

“Our perspective is that the Republcan Party is calling into doubt the integrity of our election system,” he added.

Here’s the court filing:

20101117PetitionwithSupportingAffidavit

Three statewide candidates are bucking longstanding tradition in the lead-up to Tuesday’s election: Judicial candidates Dan Griffith, Tim Tingelstad and Greg Wersal are openly weighing in on issues that could come before them if elected, and all three have endorsements by major political parties. Coming from tea party backgrounds, they have aligned themselves with the Republican Party, the Minnesota Family Council and, in one case, the Constitution Party of Minnesota, and fitting the conservative bent of those groups, the trio has opined about contentious social issues from abortion and homosexuality to the role of Christianity in schools and courtrooms. While these activities are legal, critics say that they could undermine the impartiality and nonpartisan nature of the judiciary.

Dan Griffith: Tea party activist opposes ban on religion in schools, government buildings

Griffith is running against incumbent judge Larry Stauber for the Minnesota Court of Appeals and he’s one of three candidates to answer a judicial questionnaire by the Minnesota Family Council.

Griffith has the endorsement of both the Republican Party and the Constitution Party, and he’s appeared at fundraisers for Minnesota tea party events, including a chartered bus to attend Glemn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally in Washington.

Dan Griffith

The Constitution Party of Minnesota is particularly conservative in terms of social issues, and its platform advocates making homosexuality illegal. The party also believes that English should be the official language in Minnesota and that “schools, hospitals, social services agencies, government offices, etc. should not be required to provide interpreters for clients (other than the hearing disabled). Individuals in need of these services should provide for their own assistance.”

One key point of Griffith’s platform is reforming judicial elections. In most cases, judges retire before their term is up, allowing the governor to appoint a replacement before an election. He wants to see changes to that system so that all judges are elected and not appointed. The problem, he says, is that all judges on the appellate court have been appointed: even if they were elected following their appointment, they still were not chosen by the voters.

“If I am granted the privilege of serving, I will be the first person in the history of the Appellate Court in Minnesota to be placed on the bench in the manner intended by our Constitutional framers,” Griffith told the Minnesota Independent. “That fact alone will be a continual reminder that I am a public servant, not above the people.”

But Griffith is also a servant of God. An evangelical Christian, he indicated on a Minnesota Family Council questionnaire (PDF) that he opposes court decisions that allow for public funding of abortion, prohibit school prayer and ban the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property. He agreed with court cases that banned adoption by same-sex couples and assisted suicide.

Griffith’s opponent, incumbent Judge Stauber, says that justices identifying with social issues or political parties is detrimental to an impartial judiciary.

“It’s inappropriate for any sitting judge to give their personal views on any position,” he said. “To stick your neck out as a judge on the issues, wouldn’t you have to disqualify yourself if a case on those issues came before you?”

Stauber was appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty to the appellate court in 2008 and is facing his first election. Griffith has run for the bench before in 2004, 2006 and 2008 (when he ran for the Minnesota Court of Appeals). His best showing came in 2006 with 44 percent. In the last election, he got just over 40 percent.

Griffith disagrees with Stauber: “Expressing an opinion on decided cases with set facts is appropriate and no different than the judge who decided the case expressing his or her opinion when they wrote it.”

Stauber also took issue with a quote that Griffith often uses from John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court who said, “We should elect of all people Christians.”

“To me, we’ve had some great Jewish jurists in Minnesota,” Stauber told the Minnesota Independent. “I don’t know if we’ve had any Muslim jurists yet, and I’m sure we’ve had some great atheist jurists. What does that quote tell the public about their judges?”

Griffith defended his use of Jay’s quote. “I think he was illustrating that if a person believes they are accountable for their actions in another life respecting their conduct in this, then they make better public servants,” he said. “Why? Because such a person believes even if they can fool everyone here (any politicians come to mind), they cannot fool God and that will affect their actions here.”

He added, “It should not matter what a judge’s personal beliefs are.”

Stauber, an Army veteran, says he’s been opposed to mixing partisan politics with the judiciary for a long time. “That’s been my position even before I was a judge,” he said. “I am nonpartisan.”

Stauber has trounced Griffith on recent “plebiscites,” which are internal polls of state lawyers about their preferences this election. For example, the International Falls Bar Association — which is based in Griffith’s hometown — voted unanimously for Stauber. The Minnesota State Bar, for example, gave Stauber 89 percent and Griffith 11 percent.

Greg Wersal

Greg Wersal: Fought to overturn ban on party endorsements, fundraising in judicial races

Griffith is one of three judicial candidates that are backed by a new political action committee called Justice in Minnesota. Greg Wersal is another.

Wersal is running for Minnesota Supreme Court and has been fighting rules that prevent judicial candidate from getting involved in party politics. Backed by the Republican Party of Minnesota, he’s won several important court cases. In 2006, Wersal challenged Minnesota’s ban on party endorsements for judicial candidates. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he won. The Minnesota GOP now backs candidates and is the only major party in the state to inject partisan politics into the judicial election system.

Wersal won a second big case in July when he sued the state to overturn a ban on judicial candidate fundraising. Prior to July, candidates could not solicit funds directly. Wersal’s win means that political money can flow into judicial races. In addition, the court also ruled that judicial candidates can endorse other candidates for office.

A social conservative, Wersal opposed a Minnesota court decision which overturned sodomy laws. He’s been a popular tea party speaker around the state, and is endorsed by the Republican party. While he doesn’t mention his faith as publicly as Griffith, he answered the Minnesota Family Council’s controversial questionnaire answering virtually the same as Griffith except one instance: Wersal opposed overturning sodomy laws, Griffith agreed they were unconstitutional.

Wersal is challenging Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Helen Meyer.

Tim Tingelstad

Tim Tingelstad: “Judges must be God-fearing men and women”

Another candidate for Supreme Court is Tim Tingelstad, who is very passionate about bringing God to the bench. He’s also Republican party endorsed .

“As God’s Word has been removed from our public lives, the resulting darkness has led to our present social disorder and political divisions,” his website, Highest Hill, reads. “The correction of these problems will only begin when the Light of Truth is returned to our land’s highest hills, the Supreme Courts. Until our highest courts return to an acknowledgment of the existence of God and His Truth, the people will continue to walk in the confusion of darkness.”

As the Minnesota Independent reported in 2008, he believes “judges must be God-fearing men and women.”

The separation of church and state, Tingelstad argues, is a myth. Justices should rule from the “Word of God” first, and from sources such as the constitution, statute and case law second.

Tingelstad is challenging Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan Page.

Partisanship in judicial races presents significant issues for voters, writes George W. Soule for the William Mitchell Law Review. In is 2008 paper, Soule analyzed the campaigns of Wersal and Tingelstad following the court decision that opened up judicial elections to partisanship.

Partisan judicial elections focused on the hot-button issues of the day may also deceive voters. Minnesota courts, especially district courts, rarely if ever issue rulings on issues such as abortion, Campaigns based on these gun control or same-sex marriage issues may disingenuously distract voters from real issues, such as qualifications, experience, demeanor, and philosophy. In addition, a candidate who takes positions on divisive issues may be disqualified from presiding over proceedings involving those issues. Turning judicial elections into partisan battlegrounds, targeted by special interests with large war chests, may provide a significant disincentive for prospective judicial candidates. Many lawyers who would be good judges have little political background and are wary of running a high-profile election campaign. They want to focus on being good judges, not politicians. If elections turn out to be partisan, expensive battles, many qualified judicial candidates may be deterred.

Soule wrote his paper well before the tea party became a political reality and a source of political support for three candidates for the bench.

Last June, Pawlenty used his unallotment powers to eliminate funding for several programs, including $300 million in cuts to local-government aid and $236 million in human-services spending. One of those cuts ended the Minnesota Supplemental Aid Special Diet Program. Those clients sued and won in lower courts. On Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed.

The court wrote (pdf):

In the context of this limited constitutional grant of gubernatorial authority with regard to appropriations, we cannot conclude that the Legislature intended to authorize the executive branch to use the unallotment process to balance the budget for an entire biennium when balanced spending and revenue legislation has not been initially agreed upon by the Legislature and the Governor. Instead, we conclude that the Legislature intended the unallotment authority to serve the more narrow purpose of providing a mechanism by which the executive branch could address unanticipated deficits that occur after a balanced budget has previously been enacted.

Because the legislative and executive branches never enacted a balanced budget for the 2010-2011 biennium, use of the unallotment power to address the unresolved deficit exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch by the statute. We therefore affirm the district court‘s conclusion that the unallotment of the Special Diet Program funds was unlawful and void.

Gov. Pawlenty released this statement in reaction to the decision.

“I strongly disagree with this 4-3 decision by the court. Nonetheless it will require the legislature and my administration to address its budget impacts. The funds do not exist to reinstate my unallotments and the state budget needs to be balanced without raising taxes. I call upon the DFL-controlled legislature to ratify the unallotments I enacted last year.

“I will fight to reduce spending and taxes in Minnesota and that battle continues. My commitment to the people of Minnesota remains the same: we will balance the budget without raising taxes.”

“I am going to work day and night to make sure that our kids have a great future and that America’s best days lay ahead,” Franken said in a brief, mid-day appearance with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Franken pledged to focus his efforts on revitalizing the economy, overhauling the country’s health-care system, developing new energy sources and bolstering the nation’s schools.

“Minnesotans are very practical people,” he said. “They want to make sure that the work we do here in the Senate makes sense.”

Reid and Franken took no questions from reporters. Franken is slated to be sworn in as Minnesota’s junior senator tomorrow. He’ll become the legislative body’s 60th Democrat, giving the party a filibuster-proof majority.

“Much has been made about the expectations for Al Franken joining the Senate,” Reid said. “He of course is going to work hard for the people of Minnesota. They’ve gone far too long without full representation.”

U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum:

The Minnesota Supreme Court has left no doubt that Al Franken won the 2008 race for the U.S. Senate and should immediately be sworn-in as Minnesota’s newest Senator. I am very pleased to welcome Senator-elect Franken to the Minnesota congressional delegation and I look forward to working with him on important issues, like health care reform and creating new jobs to get our economy back on track.

Tony Sutton, Chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota:

Todays ruling wrongly disenfranchised thousands of Minnesotans who deserve to have their votes counted. Alongside Senator Coleman, the Republican Party of Minnesota has fought to make sure every vote counts and all voters are treated fairly and uniformly. As we move forward, our deeply flawed election system must be dramatically improved to ensure our state’s elections are fair, accurate and reliable.

Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota:

Today’s ruling restores full and fair representation to the citizens of the state of Minnesota. Health care reform, probably the most important legislation of our generation, is being debated in Congress and Minnesotans deserve to have two United States Senators representing their interests in Washington.

Linda Slattengren, President of the Minnesota Nurses Association:

Minnesota’s highest court has affirmed the peoples voice, the election judges, and a lower court in Al Frankens right to be seated as our state’s second U.S. Senator. Let’s get him to work on the people’s business of fixing our broken health care system through federal reform and RN staffing legislation, and protecting workers’ rights through the Employee Free Choice and RESPECT Acts.

Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign President:

Senator-elect Franken has been a long time supporter and strong advocate for fairness and equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. His leadership in the United States Senate will help to ensure that all people in Minnesota, and throughout the country, are treated equally. We were honored to endorse Senator-elect Franken’s
candidacy last March and we look forward to working with him in the U.S. Senate to promote the basic tenant of our democracy that all Americans have full equality under the law.

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar:

I congratulate Al Franken on a hard-earned and long-awaited election victory. I welcome him as my new Senate colleague from Minnesota.

I respect Norm Coleman for what I’m sure was a very difficult decision. He had the right to pursue a legal appeal, but he chose to do the right thing for Minnesota. Norm was my Senate colleague for two years. Although on opposite sides of the aisle, we often worked together on issues affecting Minnesota, in particular securing quick federal support for rebuilding the 35W Bridge. Norm is a dedicated public servant. As a Senator, he took to heart his duty to represent and serve the people of Minnesota.

Ray Waldron, President of the Minnesota AFL-CIO:

After a number of people asked Senator Franken to concede in November, he stood his ground and said, “I don’t think so.” This is what we expect for a senator in the State of Minnesota who, in the Paul Wellstone mode, went against the tide and declared it was not over. We are thankful for his strong and steady convictions, and we look forward to working with our new United States Senator.

Coleman conceding on Tuesday. Photo: Chris Steller, MnIndy

“I’m really at peace,” Coleman told reporters at a press conference at his St. Paul home. “I’ve had a lot of time to process this election, think about the past and look to the future. So I really have a sense of peace for where things are at.”

Coleman vowed to work with Franken as he becomes Minnesota’s junior senator. He insisted that the fact that Franken will become the 60th Democratic senator — giving President Obama a filibuster-proof majority — played no role in his decision-making process. “Whatever I can do now to be a unifying force that’s what I’m going to do,” he said.

Coleman professed to have no immediate plans — other than going fishing. Some political observers have speculated that he might turn around and run for governor.

“I haven’t made a decision yet about the future,” he said. The Republican stated that he would likely have more to say on that subject as soon as next week.

Minnesota has had just one senator since January, when Coleman’s first term expired. Gov. Tim Pawlenty also announced that he will sign an election certificate for Franken today, clearing the way for him to be seated in Washington.

“The Minnesota Supreme Court has today addressed the issues surrounding the accuracy and integrity of our election system during the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota,” Pawlenty said in a statement. “In light of that decision and Senator Coleman’s announcement that he will not be pursuing an appeal, I will be signing the election certificate today as directed by the court and applicable law.”

Update: Gov. Tim Pawlenty has indicated he’ll sign the election certificate

Al Franken (Photo: Aaron Landry)

**UPDATED**
Minnesota’s interminable U.S. Senate race is finally over. Nearly eight months after election day, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that Democrat Al Franken prevailed by 312 votes over Republican Norm Coleman. The ruling prompted Coleman to finally concede the contest. Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced shortly thereafter that he will sign an election certificate for Franken today.

“Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled … to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota,” the court concluded.

In plain language, the five-member court meticulously shot down Coleman’s arguments as to why a three-judge panel erred in determining that Franken won the contest. In particular, it found fault with the former senator’s claim that local election officials violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by utilizing different standards in determining which absentee ballots should be rejected.

“Coleman neither claims nor produced any evidence that the differing treatment of absentee ballots among jurisdictions during the election was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination against individuals or classes,” the court noted. “Nor does Coleman claim that the trial court’s February 13 order, establishing certain categories of ballots as not legally cast, was the product of an intent to discriminate against any individual or class.”

The court also rejected Coleman’s contention that he was egregiously harmed by the trial court’s unwillingness to examine some evidence of mishandled ballots.

“We conclude that the trial court ruled correctly that Minnesota law provides no remedy for wrongly accepted absentee ballot return envelopes once those envelopes have been opened and the ballots inside deposited in the ballot box,” the opinion stated.

Shortly after the ruling was released, Coleman called a press conference at his St. Paul home and announced that he had phoned Franken to congratulate him on his victory. “Further litigation damages the unity of our state,” he said.

Coleman’s case from board to panel to Supreme Court

The extraordinarily close election — with roughly 2.4 million ballots cast, and a margin of difference of less than 0.1 percent — dragged on for more than seven months as various election officials and judges sought to determine the accurate winner of the contest. Norm Coleman initially emerged with a precarious 725-vote lead. But even before a mandatory statewide recount began, the Republican’s lead began to wither. The reason? Mistakes made by local officials on election night. For instance, Franken gained 100 votes in Partridge Township when election officials there determined that they’d mistakenly entered the Democrat’s vote tally as 24 on election night instead of 124.

By the time local election officials and campaign volunteers began the tedious, state-mandated process of re-counting every single ballot by hand, Coleman’s lead had shrunk to just 215 votes. That margin continued to dwindle throughout the month-long process, which was overseen by a four-judge panel appointed by Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Finally on Jan. 5, the Statewide Canvassing Board unanimously ruled that Franken had won the contest by 225 votes.

But this would prove to be merely another phase in the contest. Coleman appealed to the state courts, as is his right under Minnesota’s election laws. His primary argument: local election officials used wildly varying standards in determining which absentee ballots were included in the vote tally, a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

A three-judge panel, picked by Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, spent seven weeks hearing the case. They reviewed 19,000 pages of legal pleadings, 1,717 individual exhibits and testimony from 142 witnesses before ratifying Franken’s victory. The margin: 312 votes.

Coleman then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. From the outset, legal observers argued that Coleman faced grim odds in seeking to overturn the trial court’s decision.

Today’s ruling ratified that prevailing sentiment. In addition to rejecting Coleman’s arguments with regards to the Equal Protection Clause, the court shot down the Republican’s contention that some ballots were double-counted and that 132 missing Minneapolis ballots were wrongly included in the final vote tally.

“The ballots are missing, but Coleman introduced no evidence of foul play or misconduct, and the election day precinct returns are available to give effect to those votes,” the ruling notes. “We hold that the trial court did not err in ruling that the election day precinct returns for Minneapolis Ward 3, Precinct 1, were properly included in the tally of legally cast votes.”

Coleman faces an uncertain political future. Some have suggested he might be eyeing Pawlenty’s job — a post he unsuccessfully sought in 1998. But the nasty, multimillion-dollar 2008 campaign, followed by the never-ending election contest, has left both Franken and Coleman bruised.

The Supreme Court case was heard by justices Alan Page, Paul Anderson, Helen Meyer, Christopher Dietzen and Lorie Skjervern Gildea. Justices Eric Magnuson and G. Barry Anderson recused themselves from the case because they both served on the Statewide Canvassing Board that initially certified Franken the winner.