(WDCpix)

(WDCpix)

Norm Coleman wants all voters who “substantially complied” with state rules governing absentee ballots to have their votes counted. In a brief filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court today, the former senator argues that the case should be sent back to the trial court under orders to consider 4,400 rejected absentee ballots for possible inclusion in the vote tally.

Following a seven-week trial, a three-judge panel determined that Al Franken won the U.S. Senate contest by 312 votes — a decision that Coleman has appealed to the state’s top court.

Earlier this week Franken filed his response to Coleman’s appeal, arguing that any mistakes made in calculating the vote tally were minor and did not affect the outcome of the race. He wants the Supreme Court to affirm the trial court’s ruling that the Democrat won the contest by 312 votes and order that he be issued an election certificate immediately.

“Franken would have the court believe Coleman’s claims are an unfounded challenge to an election system that operated under uniform standards during the November 4, 2008 election with no more than minor errors,” the brief states. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

The legal arguments in today’s 34-page filing are similar to those in Coleman’s initial brief before the state’s top court. He argues that different standards were applied across the state in deciding which absentee ballots were included in the vote tally. For instance, election officials in Carver County demanded that absentee ballots include a complete address in order to be counted, according to the brief, while their counterparts in Ramsey County were more lax in determining whether an address was sufficient. Coleman argues that this is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore.

“Accepting Franken’s contention that the disparate treatment did not affect the outcome of this historically close election requires the court to ignore the record,” Coleman’s brief contends. “It also requires the court to eschew mathematics and common sense. The court should do neither.”

The former senator contends that there are both votes currently included in the tally that should be excluded, and rejected ballots that should be added to the count. The brief argues that the three-judge panel that oversaw Coleman’s initial contest erred by imposing a more stringent standard for accepting absentee ballots than were utilized by many local election officials.

Coleman believes the court should have erred on the side of including as many votes as possible. For instance, the brief argues that if a person providing a witness signature on an absentee ballot has a Minnesota address then he or she should be assumed to be a registered voter, as required by law.

The brief filed today also repeats claims that lost ballots were wrongly included in the vote tally and that the court failed to consider evidence that some ballots were counted twice.

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are slated for June 1.