STATE OF MINNESOTA. DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT In the Matter of the Contest of General Election held on November 4, 2008, for the purpose of electing a United States Senator from the State of Minnesota, No. 62-CV-09-56 Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman, Contestants, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND v. ORDER FOR JUDGMENT. Al Franken, Contestee. This action came on for a court trial before the Honorable Elizabeth A. Hayden, the Honorable Kurt J, Marben, and the Honorable Denise D. Reilly, District Court Judges, beginning on January 26, 2009 and ending on March 13, 2009. Having considered the testimony and evidence adduced at trial, the exhibits admitted into evidence, the pleadings, briefs and memoranda submitted by all the parties, and the arguments of counsel, the Court now makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:CONTENTS FINDINGS OF FACT. Procedural History of this Election Contest. Absentee Voting Requirements. Absentee Ballots Cast in the November 4, 2008 General Election Rejected Absentee Ballots Reviewed During the Recount... Discrepancies Between Election-Night Totals and Totals from the Administrative Recount 19 Vote Total eet 21 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 22 ‘Additional Wrongfully Rejected Absentee Ballots Should Be Included in the Certified Vote Total s.crceriorsnrnnnnrinnenseie on 22 ‘The Court Shall Not Set Aside the Totals Certified by the Board, oo 24 Rule 9 Does Not Violate Minnesota Law... 28 Contestants Have Failed to Establish Their Equal Protection Claim ORDER FOR JUDGMENT.FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural History of this Election Contest On November 4, 2008, Minnesota held a general election, including the election for United States Senator. Norm Coleman (“Coleman”) and Al Franken (“Franken”) were two of the candidates for Senator. Cullen Sheehan served as Coleman's campaign manager. On November 18, 2008, the consolidated statewide canvassing report showed that Coleman received 1,211,565 votes and Franken received 1,211,359 votes. (Ex. F14 at 3.) The margin of votes separating the two candidates was 206 votes, less than one-half of one percent, triggering an automatic hand recount of the votes. (Test'y of Gelbmann, Jan. 29, 2009 at 54-55.) On November 18, 2008, the Minnesota State Canvassing Board (“Board”) signed the Certificate of General Election Canvassing Report and directed the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State to oversee an administrative manual recount of votes cast for the office of United States Senator as provided by Minn, Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 1(b). On behalf of the Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary James Gelbmann and Director of Elections, Gary Poser, drafted proposed Administrative Recount Procedures and provided them to both campaigns for their review. (Gelbmann Testy, Jan. 28, 2009 at 93, 94, 135- 37; Ex. F10,) The Board approved the Administrative Recount Procedures as proposed without objection from the parties. (Ex. F14.) ‘The mandatory recount began on November 19, 2008 and concluded on January 5, 2009. Nearly 3 million ballots were reviewed and counted. The report compiled from the hand recount showed that Franken received 1,212,431 votes and that Coleman received 1,212,206 votes. (Ex. F140.) On January 5, 2009, the Board certified the results of the election and declared that Franken received 225 more votes than Coleman in the race for United States Senator. (Ex. F138.) On January 6, 2009, Contestants filed a Notice of Contest in Ramsey County District Court contesting the certificate of election results issued by the Board and seeking an order declaring that Coleman was entitled to the certificate of election as United States Senator. ‘The trial in this election contest commenced on January 26, 2009, within 20 days of the date of Contestants filing their Notice of Contest as required by Minnesota Statute § 209.065. On the first day of trial, Contestee filed witness and exhibit lists identifying 773 potential witnesses. The following day Contestants filed their witness and exhibit lists, identifying 150 potential witnesses and requesting leave to amend those lists during the trial. At no point during trial did Contestants seek to amend their list to add additional witnesses.