‘No. A09-697 State of Minnesota In Supreme Court 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, Norm Coleman and Cullen Sheehan, Appellants, vs. Al Franken, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Marc B. Blias (DC Bar #442007) David L. Lillehaug (#63186) Kevin J. Hamilton (Wash. Bar #15648) Richard D. Snyder (#191292) Lisa Marshall Manheim (Wash. Bar #40198) Fredrikson & Byron, P-A. Perkins Coie LLP ; 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 607 Fourteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Washington, D.C. 20005-2011 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 Telephone: '(202) 628-6600 Facsimile: (612) 492-7077 Counsel for Respondent Counsel for Respondent (Counsel for Appellants on back)Joseph S. Friedberg Chartered suite 320 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 ‘Telephone: (612) 339-8626 Facsimile: (612) 339-8627 ieest S. Friedberg James K. Langdon Gretchen Agce Dorsey & Whitney LLP Suite 1500 50 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1498 Telephone: (612) 340-2600 Facsimile: (612) 340-2868 Counsel for Appellants Tony P. Trimble Matthew W. Haapoja ‘Trimble & Associates, Ltd. Suite 130 10201 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 ‘Telephone: (952) 797-7477 Facsimile: (952) 797-5858 Frederic W. Knaak Knaak & Kantrud Suite 800 3500 Willow Lake Boulevard ‘Vadnais Heights, Minnesota 55110 Telephone: (651) 490-9078 Facsimile: (651) 490-1580 Counsel for AppellantsCONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. 1 RESTATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED 3 RESTATEMENT OF THE CASE..... 5 L General Background...... we 5 I. Treatment of Absentee Ballots.. 5 A. Treatment of Absentee Ballots on and Before Blection Day sn 5 B. Treatment of Absentee Ballots During the Recount... et C. “Treatment of Absentee Ballots in Appellants’ Notice of Contest and Discovery Responses .. se wT D. Treatment of Absentee Ballots in the Trial Court Proceedings... E. Treatment of Absentee Ballots in the Final Orde: III. Treatment of Appellants! Verified Petition for Inspections 12 IV. Treatment of Ballots Missing in Minneapolis Precinct 3-1. 13 ARGUMENT I. Legal Framework and Standards of Review. IL Appellants’ Claims Fail as a Matter of Law. A. Appellants! Equal Protection Claim Is Without Merit. B. Appellants’ Due Process Claim Was Never Raised, and It Is Hthout Merit . C. Appellants! "Substantial Compliance” Argument Is Without fetit on IIL Each of Appellants’ Five Points Fails on Multiple, Independent Grounds: A. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Excluding ‘Cumulative and Irrelevant Evidenc 1. The Evidence Was Cumulative, 20) 2. The Evidence Was Irrelevant....... 3. Exclusion of the Evidence Was Harmless.