Regular BlackInk readers know that I'm obsessed with what Gov. Pawlenty will do about issuing an election certificate after the MN Supremes rule on the Coleman/Franken appeal. Pawlenty readdressed the matter Tuesday and the estimable Rachel Stassen-Berger of the Pi-Press blogged it last night. She seems to think he clarified something. I'm not so sure. But fellow obsessives can decide for themselves. Said Pawlenty:

"They could be silent on the issue, they could direct a certain course of action and certainly we would follow any direction or order of the court and, of course, if there was an appeal to a federal court they may have something to say about it as well."

TPaw has previously said that he will obey if the Supremes order him to issue the certificate. Now he says he will follow any direction or order. I can imagine how the court might provide "direction" that is not quite an "order," but I fear we are slicing the baloney awfully thin to read much into that.

Pawlenty has said previously that he might wait to see if a federal court would issue a stay, which would certainly change the situation. No way Pawlenty issues the certificate if a federal court orders him not to.

Yesterday, the guv didn't mention a stay. But says that a federal court "may have something to say about it." If there's movement there, it's only in the direction of less clarity.

First of all, the MN Supremes made fairly clear in an earlier ruling that they believe their final ruling in the election contest will represent the end of the state process and that therefore, if they decide that Franken got the most votes, a certificate should be issued. Until now, Pawlenty has not embraced this notion and yesterday's comment doesn't move the needle.

Pawlenty refers to an "appeal to a federal court." This is messed up and Pawlenty, who is a lawyer, should be more careful. The U.S. Supreme Court is a federal court, and whoever loses at the MN Supreme level does have a right to appeal to the U.S. Supremes. But unlike the state Supreme Court, which was required to take the case, the U.S. Supremes are not. The experts agree the chances are slim that they would take it, and slim that they would issue a stay while they think about whether to take it.

But the vague phrase "appeal to a federal court" seems to refer to the other remaining possibility for legal action: that Coleman would file a whole new suit in federal district court. (As a technical matter, I'm told that to have any chance of getting a federal court to take the case, the plaintiff could not be Coleman but would have to be some set of Minnesotans whose absentee ballots were rejected and who are claiming that their right to vote was violated.)

But A: This would not be an appeal to a federal court. This would be a whole new lawsuit. And B: It would therefore not be a continuation of the state court process. The experts are strong and unanimous that if such a case is pending, it would have no impact on the state law that requires the issuance of a certificate when the state court process is concluded. It's not Pawlenty's job to take a position on that question. And maybe an individual federal judge will see it differently and will issue a stay or otherwise "have something to say about it."

In my piece yesterday, I quoted Steve Smith of Washington University predicting that Coleman will file such a federal case shortly before the MN Supremes rule, so Pawlenty could at least claim that he has to wait a while before issuing the certificate to see if the federal courts have a different view of the matter.