The representation of Norm Coleman has filed paper work with the Minnesota Supreme Court appealing the decision of the Election Contest Court. The filings came in the form of three documents, each of which I will highlight below. The first document is the Notice of Appeal:

TO: Clerk of the Appellate Courts

Minnesota Judicial Center

25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55155 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-named Contestants appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 209.10 subd. 4, from the final judgment of the contest court entered on the date shown above, declaring Contestee the recipient of the highest number of legally cast votes in the General Election held November 4, 2008, for the purpose of electing a United States Senator for the State of Minnesota, as well as from all orders relating thereto as subsumed therein. Dated: April 20, 2009 ... Dear Clerk of Appellate Courts: Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter are the following documents: 1. Original and 2 copies of the Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court; 2. Certified copy of the Contest Court's Judgment; 3 Original and 2 copies of the Appellants' Statement of the Case; 4. Affidavit of Service upon Ramsey County; and 5. Affidavit of Service upon opposing counsel. Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $500 to cover the filing fee. Source: Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The second document contains 10 items that more or less summarize the appeal. Some of these items are simply procedural while others contain useful information. Section 5 is by far the most relevant as it directly lists the claims that the Coleman campaign is actually appealing; I've excerpted all of section 5 and the headings of the other 9 sections below:

1. COURT OF CASE ORIGINATION AND NAME OF PRESIDING JUDGE 2. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 3. TYPE OF LITIGATION AND STATUTE AT ISSUE 4. DESCRIPTION OF CLAIMS, DEFENSES, ISSUES LITIGATED AND RESULT BELOW 5. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL I. Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding (a) the disparate application by election officials of the statutory standard governing absentee ballots and (b) the presence of illegal votes in the certified totals from election night? II. Whether the trial court violated the constitutional protections of equal protection and due process when it declared that Respondent received the highest number of "legally cast votes" where the record demonstrated that, by the trial court's rulings, the number of "illegally cast" ballots counted on election day and during the recount greatly exceeded the margin between the candidates and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were counted? III. Whether the trial court violated the constitutional protections of equal protection and due process when it imposed a strict compliance standard for the rejected absentee ballots rather than applying a substantial compliance standard to reflect those actually applied by election officials (as well as this Court's longstanding policy favoring enfranchisement)? IV. Whether the trial court erred in declining to order inspections of precincts in which double-counting was alleged to have occurred? V. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that missing ballots from Minneapolis Precinct 3-1 were properly included in the tally officially cast votes? 6. RELATED APPEALS 7. CONTENTS OF RECORD 8. ORAL ARGUMENT 9. TYPE OF BRIEF 10. NAMES, ADDRESSES, ZIP CODES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT Dated: April 20, 2009 Source: Statement of the Case of Appellants via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The most interesting point of appeal comes from section 5.2 and seems to highlight Norm Coleman's attempt to invalidate the election, rather than prevail as the top vote-getter. This marks the first time, that I can recall, where the Coleman campaign has sought relief that would not result in him being declared the winner. The other four items in this section do however encompass the potential addition or subtraction of votes, that could result in Coleman taking the lead, albeit it unlikely.

The final document is simply the judgment entered by the ECC last Monday that asserted Franken's victory by 312 votes. I assume, that when filing an appeal, you must file the judgment which you are actually appealing.

Any future court filings will be filed on the MN Supreme Court litigation page; a change from the previous ECC litigation website. I have no idea when the actual litigation process will begin, although, according to MN § 209.10.4, "the appeal from an election contest relating to the office of state senator or representative takes precedence over all other matters before the Supreme Court." MN § 209.10.4 further pertains "to a contest regarding a statewide office" as noted within MN § 209.09; this classification includes the US Senate Election. Although the appeal will have precedence, I would still expect the Franken campaign to push for an expedited schedule.

Update [7:38 PM CT]: I found other relevant law (§ 209.09) that applied to § 209.10.4 and thus establishes the election contest appeal as paramount to MN Supreme Court's duties. I've updated the article to clarify and reflect these changes.