The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled earlier this evening on Sen. Norm Coleman's effort to block the counting of certain absentee ballots in the state's protracted Senate recount. Let me start by saying that the opinion (.pdf) is not a model of clarity. The court ruled partly in favor of Coleman, agreeing that certain provisions of state law did not apply under these circumstances. Nonetheless, the court makes an effort, albeit an inelegant one, to craft a method for counting the absentee ballots that are in dispute. Or I should say a method for deciding whether to count the disputed absentee ballots. Herein lies the rub.

The Franken camp, which wants the rejected absentee ballots counted, has issued a statement praising the ruling as calling for all votes to be counted. But it's not readily apparent to me that the court's ruling will have that desired effect.

Let me say directly that I am no expert in Minnesota election law. But as I read through the opinion, I became increasingly uncomfortable with its reasoning. Then I got to the dissent (.pdf, 6th page) written by Alan Page (the former Viking and NFL Hall of Famer), which crystallizes all of the deficiencies of the majority's opinion, which seem to me to generally accrue to Franken's disadvantage, although, again, the Franken people don't see it that way.

The most troubling part of the ruling is the requirement that state and local election officials and both campaigns must all agree that an absentee ballot was mistakenly rejected in order for it now to be included in the recount. Think about that for a minute. The court seems to recognize the potential for mischief here and puts the campaigns on notice that it will impose sanctions for not acting in good faith. Good luck with that.