Byron is right to point out the possibility of confusion. I think the court underestimates the trouble that receiving two votes from absentee voters will cause. But the court’s order does have a few features worth noting. First, as I explain in more detail here, the court made clear that if an absentee voter votes for Wellstone and does not seek a new ballot, the vote counts for Wellstone. Second, they didn’t buy the DFL’s ridiculous arguments that election officials needed to use internet ballots for absentees–a proposal that would have assured Mondale a majority of the popular vote in China. And third, they didn’t bite on any of the DFL’s complaints about the supplemental ballots. None of this prevents lawsuits from being filed after the election, but on balance it’s a good first sign from the court.