st. louis county. we made that offer of proof because it was ruled irrelevant. >> i will be very specific here. i am very bothered by your offer of proof. you will obtain testimony from a substantial and material number of minnesota county election officials. you are prohibited from doing that. in 26, you say you could have called all 87 auditors, but we purposely didn't do that because we didn't want to take the time. that implies to me that you could have. but let me talk about your list of sample ballots. i have gone through those. 1016, all of that, they are basically just lists of names. in paragraph 4, you said the testimony of a material number of individual voters, but know voters are identified. i am having a problem. >> this is 646, appendix 709. we do identify each and every ballot. let me give you an example. this envelope was counted on election night. it makes its point. i don't want to use the last name but it is the first one in 1709. it says i am in mt. juliet, tennessee and couldn't f

st. louis county. we made that offer of proof because it was ruled irrelevant -- ruled irrelevant. >> i am bothered by your offer of proof. he said you will obtain testimony from a substantial and material number of minnesota county election officials. you said you were prohibited from doing that. then you say you could have called all 87 auditors and election clerks, but we purposely did not do that because we did not want to take the time. it tells me that you could have -- but then let me talk about your list of sample ballots. i have gone through those. c 1016. they are basically just lists -- a list of names. then in paragraph four of the march to offer, you say the testimony of the material number of individual voters but no voters are identified. i really having a problem with that offer of proof. >> your honor, i can read from it. this is: 646, -- coleman 646. we do it identified the balance there. this is a picture of a ballot envelope that was opened and counted on election night. it makes it

st. louis county, where they can't out none. can't we say that it is reasonable to believe, one county being as smart as the other, that you will find the same percentage? so you multiplied times 4 or 5, now you know that in all likelihood, more likely than not, which is our burden -- >> i would suggest that the other side would say bring in the ballots and let's look and see. >> there is no reason to because our burden of proof is to make it more likely than not. not prove it so that nobody has any doubt. >> i think their argument would be we need to see the ballots so that we can show what happened and why it was either properly or improperly rejected. >> they grab on to this statement that every ballot has the story. >> i am not interested in the story of the ballots, but one would like to know whether they were properly or improperly accepted or rejected. the only way to do that was to look at specific ballots. >> they are in our offer of proof and the trial court didn't look at them. there is no indication anywhere that any

st. louis county. you could presume that the people in each county are as smart as each other. all you have to do is extrapolate. they did that in bush again score when they compared the relaxed standard in brouwer county with the and relax county -- standard in palm beach county. the population should get equal. when plymouth kicks out 75 for signature mismatching in 31 counties in the state kicked out nunn, we have made our case. you cannot make it any better than that. >> good time has expired. >> i would like to frame the questions of that it can be answered. i am still having problem with you saying we are a substantial compliance state. there is language i do not think you can overcome. i will give language from one source. it says if the stage -- statute or directory the argument would be of some force. it has no application here because the statute is mandatory. the court goes on to express concern about lowering the bar altogether because of a flaw in it. the absentee statue is different ♪ from the coming electio law and -- the absence to the statute is different from