” And what solid evidence has been brought before them. “
How about hundreds of affidavits alleging election malfeasance/illegality which were summarily disregarded by the courts whom you acknowledge didn’t want to get involved.
” The election officials are saying there is no problem.”
Can you hear yourself?
So a law that specifies if affadavits are brought forward by more than two election workers or more than 4 election observers, there must be a forensic audit and that goes on to specify the scope of the forensic audit, would have been a great law to have in place.
I’m just acknowledging reality. Multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions over many elections have refused to get very involved in elections.
The clearer and more specific you make the laws and dictate in the laws what must be done and under what circumstances, the more likely the courts will follow the law. If you leave it gray, the courts are going to bail on you.
That’s reality. You can wish all day long that the judges don’t act like that. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas.
Laws are passable in some of the battleground states. Good luck changing the judiciary in our lifetime.
Yeah, I'm saying the law doesn't provide sufficient checks and balances. It's all left up to the election officials. And the courts are going to defer to the election officials, because they have the responsibility under the political process.
So split up the responsibility some. Pass laws that separate securing the ballots and election offices and surveilling the election offices from the election officials.
Don't leave things up to the election officials to decide. Have some penalties for not following the law. No penalties is how they got away with just doing what they wanted regardless of what the law said.
Have enough transparency so that you know when an election official is not following the law. And so that evidence gathered and criminal charges filed.