The judges sustained the objection as to how Friedberg was phrasing this, but allowed him to continue with the line of inquiry.
Friedberg then discussed how if the power of attorney was granted because the voter was mentally incompetent, then obviously the ballot is invalid -- but if it's because of a physical disability, it's valid. The problem, Friedberg offered, is that we don't know.
Friedberg debated the idea of delegating authority to fill out a ballot. "I can't give my ability to decide who to vote for to someone else, can I?" he said, before the Franken camp successfully objected.
He then rephrased: "To be more specific, John Clarence Albert can't give his decision-making process in relation to who to vote for to anybody else, can he?" This, too, met a successful objection.
He tried again: "You have no idea whether John Albert even knows that someone even voted on his behalf, do you?" Friedberg said. After this was objected to, Friedberg simply asked whether Holmsted had ever seen a mark like this before -- she hadn't.
Let's take a trip down memory lane: Joe Friedberg once offered up the idea that someone had illegally signed and voted in two ballots for himself and his wife, but said that one of them should be counted. He also previously declared that he didn't care about the procedures to prevent ballot fraud.