Team Franken and Team Coleman have found something else to argue about. On this round, instead of votes or election certificates, it's money: specifically how much of it Coleman owes Franken.

The state law on election contests requires the contestant (the person who was behind after the Canvassing Board recount, in this case Norm Coleman) must pay the expenses the contestee (the person who was ahead, aka Al Franken) incurs in defending their case. This requirement applies if, but only if, the contestee wins the case, which Franken says he did, when TheThreeJudges of the Election Contest Court ruled that he, Franken, had received the most votes and was therefore entitled to an election certificate. Coleman says the case isn't over until his appeal to the MN Supreme Court is over.

On April 28, with no fanfare (and, so far as I can tell, no coverage until this post) Team Franken filed with the court a 394-page document detailing what it said were the costs covered by that provision, and asking the court to order immediate payment.

Total: $161,510.63.

Both sides in the case have raised and spent millions post-Election Day -- most of it presumably for attorney fees, which are not covered by the reimbursement law. But $161K is still a serious chunk of change and must be galling for Colemanites (including contributors who gave Coleman the funds that he may now have to give to Franken).

The biggest single category of expense: $59,078, was for data practice requests and subpoenas. I'm not completely sure what-all is included in this category, but this one might be especially tough for Coleman to take because it symbolizes one of the areas in which Team Franken seems to have clobbered Team Coleman throughout the proceedings.

Most of these data practice requests, I presume, were the cost of getting from Minnesota's 87 counties information about the rejected and disputed absentee ballots that were the main subject of the case. There is a growing belief among close watchers of the trial that one reason Franken won such an overwhelming victory in court, was that Team Franken seemed to know more and sooner than their opponents about the disputed ballots. If so, it is now at least ironic that Franken may collect from Coleman the costs of Franken's data-acquisition operation.

It does appear that Franken's aggressive data operations began immediately after Election Day, well before the contest phase -- and therefore, the early stages of it are not eligible for reimbursement. This data gathering operation rendered Team Franken able to make better strategic decisions about which ballots to challenge and how to frame their arguments. This is quite likely among the reasons that Franken, who trailed Coleman heading into the Canvassing Board process, took the lead during the challenged ballots process and has continued to increase his lead at each subsequent stage.

During the Election Contest phase, for example, although Coleman sought to convince TheThreeJudges to count thousands of additional ballots in hopes of overtaking Franken's lead, Franken actually put into evidence more ballots with proof of registration than did Team Coleman. This may turn out to be a big factor in the final outcome, which is why I say it would be ironic if Coleman has to pay the costs Franken incurred in amassing that proof of registration and other data.

Anyway, the counties are allowed to charge the parties for fulfilling data practice requests, and did so. The document Franken filed with the court lists the amount paid to each county. Unusually high were Blue Earth County, at $12,608 and Ramsey County at $14,450 (Ramsey has about 10 times the population of Blue Earth).

In its filing, Franken also seeks reimbursement for $35,382 for trial transcripts, $26,576 for costs related to the creation of trial exhibits, right on down to the cost of renting photocopiers for the trial team's use ($4,671).

Team Franken asserts that all of the costs were reasonable and necessary for the presentation of evidence for "a complex, seven-week exhibit-intensive trial."

On May 8, Coleman's attorneys filed a 10-page document objecting to Franken's demands, arguing that many of the claimed costs are unreasonable.

Coleman claims Franken paid extra to get expedited transcripts, which were made for the convenience of the Franken team and should not be imposed as a cost. Coleman registers a similar complaint about many of the categories of expense, that they were for convenience, not necessity and he should not have to reimburse.

“The court should take a hard look at these costs and disallow them accordingly,” Team Coleman wrote.

Franken wants an immediate order for the payment of the money, but it looks like that isn't happening. Kyle Christopherson of the State Court system told me this morning that the judges will hold a separate hearing on the issue of the expenses and reimbursements, but won't do so until after the Supreme Court rules in the case. And we know that won't happen until after June 1, when the Supremes are scheduled to hear oral arguments.