Jim DeMint wants Mitch McConnell to force Ted Stevens out of the Senate soon, and if the Minority Leader doesn’t do it himself, DeMint will.  DeMint argues that the longer the GOP tolerates the now-convicted Alaskan Senator, the more damage it will do to the Republican Party.  Scratch a little deeper, though, and one may see the battle lines of a leadership fight in the near future:

South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint is pushing his party’s leadership to expel Sen. Ted Stevens from the Senate during this month’s “lame duck” session, according to people familiar with his plans.

DeMint, one of the most conservative members of the Senate, is said to be angry with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for tolerating a convicted felon in the GOP caucus.

McConnell called on Stevens to resign last week after the Alaska senator was convicted on seven federal felony counts. McConnell said there was “zero chance” Stevens wouldn’t be expelled from the Senate if he didn’t resign – but he also made it clear that Stevens would have a chance to appeal his conviction first.

Stevens, who has rebuffed calls to quit, claims he has “not been convicted yet” because he still has the right to appeal.

Actually, that’s not quite accurate.  Stevens has argued that he hasn’t been convicted yet because the trial judge has not certified the jury’s conclusions.  That’s a formal step before sentencing, and while Stevens is technically correct, it’s a minor detail.  There is almost zero chance that the judge will reverse any of the convictions, let alone all of them.  However, the formality allows him to argue that any action by the Senate would be premature.

Of course, the Senate has the power to act with or without a criminal conviction to expel a member for corruption.  Without criminal prosecution, that would normally go through the Ethics Committee, which has a long, laborious process for determining appropriate action.  With the conviction, any Senator can make a motion for expulsion on the floor, but it takes two-thirds of the Senate to concur.  Also, as Politico points out, that requires unanimous consent, meaning Stevens himself could block the motion as soon as McConnell or DeMint offer it.

This appears more of a consequence of frustration among conservative reformers in the GOP about the lack of reform effort in the party over the last two years than an issue of Stevens specifically.  DeMint and other firebrands want leadership to take reform seriously, on spending, pork, and process.  They may be aiming to replace McConnell, who just fought off a serious challenge to his seat, with someone more temperamentally focused on rebuilding the caucus in that manner.  Having Stevens remain in the caucus makes it harder to argue that the GOP has turned that corner, but it also presents an opportunity for the conservatives to assert themselves in leadership challenges.

Mitch McConnell has done a good job in fighting Harry Reid, and the GOP will need a good infighter as Minority Leader.  Can McConnell lead the fight for reform as well?  We’ll soon see whether he has the confidence of the shrinking Republican caucus to do that.