The three-judge court in the Minnesota election contest issued this order and opinion denying Coleman’s request for summary judgment. Reading it will give you a much better idea as to the kinds of absentee ballots still at issue in this case. The court is requiring an intensive ballot-by-ballot review of any ballot that Coleman wants to have counted. This could be time consuming, but it may become clear as the court starts reviewing the ballots whether or not it will be worth Coleman continuing the process. Of course, if some of the goal here is simply to delay the seating of Franken, then the process could continue even if it looks hopeless for Coleman. But at some point public opinion could turn against him.
The opinion is also noteworthy for its dismissal of Coleman’s Bush v. Gore claim. I haven’t read all the pleadings on the Bush v. Gore issue, but I think the single paragraph here is rather dismissive of Coleman’s arguments. “Unlike the situation presented in Florida in Bush v. Gore, the Minnesota Legislature has enacted a standard clearly and unambiguously enumerating the grounds upon which an absentee ballot may be accepted or rejected. … The objective standards imposed on absentee ballots by Minn. Stat. 203B.12 distinguishes the election systems of Minnesota and Florida.” If I understand Coleman’s argument correctly, this is not responsive. His argument is that Bush v. Gore’s equal protection principles required the court to accept for counting absentee ballots that were properly rejected under state law, because in some parts of the state, election officials counted ballots that should have been properly rejected for the same reasons under state law.
I am not saying that Coleman had a winning argument there; I am quite skeptical of it. But the three-judge court does not seem to have addressed it. Perhaps I’m missing something….