I think the good balanced intent was there but there is a significant flaw, and that flaw could invalidate it. The court was trying to adhere to the equal protection clause commendable. But it may have over reached this endeavor by mandating bias, by requiring that 'both' candidates approve that an absentee ballot be opened or else it can be opened and counted.
This requirement of 'all' candidates agreeing and not the requirement that the MN absentee ballot law be evenly applied throughout the state, opens the stage for violation of the equal protection clause. Who is to stop any candidate from cherry picking ballots based of the geographics of the ballot? This would be a violation of the equal protection clause.
If the rules end up being anything but MN election law, either candidate but most most likely the losing candidate can challenge this in Fed court, because it becomes an equal protection issue.
I'm curious to find out what the dissenting judges in the 3-2 decision objected to.