DEC. 18
THE ARGUMENT: Coleman asks the Supreme Court to block the state Canvassing Board from including any improperly rejected absentee ballots in the recount. He says that if wrongly rejected ballots are an issue, the appropriate forum for it is a post-recount legal challenge
THE RESULT: Coleman loses -- sort of. A split court rules 3-2 that the state Canvassing Board can count rejected ballots, but only those that local officials and both campaigns agree were validly cast.
MARCH 6
THE ARGUMENT: Franken asks the Supreme Court to certify him as the winner of the U.S. Senate election so he can be provisionally seated while Coleman's challenge continues in court.
THE RESULT: Franken loses. In a 5-0 decision, the court rules that no certificate can be issued until the state court process is complete.
APRIL 24
THE ARGUMENT: After Coleman appeals the trial court's decision awarding the election to Franken, each side seeks its own timetable for briefs and arguments.
THE RESULT: The Supreme Court decides in favor of Coleman's more deliberate schedule over Franken's speedier proposal. Oral arguments are set for June 1.
KEVIN DUCHSCHERE
