Following the MN law, the SC ruled last Friday that all "Wellstone" absentee voters had two choices to "correct" their ballots. They could request a new absentee ballot, or they could vote in person which would vitiate any absentee ballots they had previously cast.
Therefore, no one was "disenfrancised." Any voter who ignored both options and allowed a "Wellstone" vote to stand, simply decided under MN law not to cast a ballot between Coleman and Mondale. So, if the court ever addressed the merits, rather than simply ruling on the numbers as being too few to make a difference, Mondale still loses.
God only knows what the New Jersey Supreme Court would do with this case, But it is in Minnesota, where the judges have already demonstrated their obedience to the law and to their oaths of office.
The question raised in this thread is less then a tempest in a teapot. It is a non-existent tempest in a non-existent teapot.
Congressman Billybob