We May Not Be Close To Resolving The Minnesota Senate Race

A drizzly, dreary day in Washington. Perfect time to freshen things up with some readers' e-mails.

Lynda Rothschild of Gaithersburg, Md., asks a question that we're all asking:

Please settle a bet for me. Who won the Minnesota Senate race: Al Franken or Norm Coleman? I say it was Franken.

I say you can't collect your money just yet. But the odds are looking good that ultimately it will be Franken.

 

On Tuesday, the three-judge panel that has been hearing the still-unresolved election ruled that it will look at up to 400 previously rejected absentee ballots — far fewer than the 1,300 or so the Coleman camp wanted. By that calculation, Coleman would need to win 79 percent of those votes to triumph. (The panel will count the votes on April 7.)

First of all, that's a very tall order for any candidate. Some, if not many, of these votes will almost assuredly go to Franken. Second of all, no one thinks that whatever happens next Tuesday will end the stalemate. Coleman attorney Benjamin Ginsberg has already cried foul, saying that the panel's ruling has disenfranchised voters, and he is expected to take it to the state Supreme Court. Some in the party want the appeal to go further if they fail there — the federal appeals courts and, perhaps, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I suspect that on Tuesday, should the count favor Franken, there will be an effort by Majority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate Democrats to seat Franken. But I know that Republicans may attempt to block the move.

Another question is what Gov. Tim Pawlenty will do if he is asked to certify the results. The two-term Republican is eligible to run again in 2010. But if voters feel that partisanship has overtaken the process — Democrats claim that the GOP is dragging this out simply to keep them from getting a 59th seat in the Senate — then Pawlenty could be hurt at home. However, if he has already given up the thought of a third term, then maybe such a stance would help what is presumed to be his 2012 White House ambitions. (I'm not accusing Pawlenty of playing politics; I'm just throwing this out for your consideration.) In any case, the spotlight will be on his actions.

I've said this over and over, and I say it again. Ultimately, I think Franken will be seated. But there's still no light and still no end of the tunnel.

Then there was this from Earl Moreo of Dayton, Ohio:

You said on Talk of the Nation that with only 400 votes allowed to be counted, Coleman would need 57% of those votes to win. Actually he would need 78% of those votes to win, since if Coleman only gets 57% of those 400 votes, that gives him 228 more votes, and gives Al Franken the other 172, leaving him with a winning margin of 171 votes.

You need a good arithmetician to keep you honest.

Well, to quote Chevy Chase in a famous 1976 Saturday Night Live skit — in which he was portraying a confused President Ford attempting to handle a debate question on the Humphrey-Hawkins employment bill — "It was my understanding there would be no math."

But this was my fault. There was this line from Wednesday's First Read, the invaluable political tipsheet from NBC's Chuck Todd:

Indeed, per our math, Coleman is going to need to win nearly 57% of these 400 ballots to overturn Franken's 225-vote lead.

I took that stat at face value and ran with it, without doing the math myself. You're right; I was way off. It actually comes to 79 percent. If Coleman wins 79 percent of the remaining 400 votes, he'll get 316, leaving Franken with 84. Add 84 to Franken's current lead of 225, and you get 309. That was careless of me.