To say Minnesotans are weary of the ongoing court review of the Al Franken and Norm Coleman election count would be an understatement.
The unresolved election seems to have dragged on longer than the brutally long winter.
After eight weeks of litigation, Franken has not only held his narrow lead but extended it to 312 after a special three-judge panel last week examined 351 previously unopened ballot envelopes.
The court on Monday issued its ruling — that Franken drew the most votes — but Coleman’s lawyers had already indicated they will appeal the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
With virtually all legal arguments and the vote total going in Franken’s favor throughout the review process, many Minnesotans are saying Coleman should accept the inevitable now and not appeal to the state’s high court.
But it is important that the state court system be allowed to fully review the legal questions in the case.
Coleman’s lawyers, who want as many as 4,800 more rejected absentee ballots reviewed, make serious allegations about the legitimacy of the state’s election system. They argue the three-judge panel isn’t seriously looking at flaws in the system that makes it impossible to determine a winner in very close races.
Whether or not that is true should be of great interest to all Minnesotans and it is a question that the state Supreme Court should review.
If, however, the high court either allows the three-judge panel’s ruling to stand, or takes the case for review and ultimately rules against Coleman, Franken should be seated in the U.S. Senate.
There are already indications that Coleman would push the case into the federal courts if he loses before the state’s high court. That would benefit the Republican Party by keeping Democrat Franken out of the Senate for many more months.
The issues being raised by Coleman may be important, but Minnesotans should feel confident the state’s judicial system, including the Minnesota Supreme Court, is fully capable of deciding state election issues.
Dragging a losing case into the federal court system would smack more of political tricks than a sincere attempt to clarify state election law.
