The point is, why are there bleed-through ballots at all? They supposedly use bleed-PROOF paper ballots.
Yes, but unless I missed something, it was limited to the expert explaining that the state highlighted “bleed-proof” ballots. That fact seemed to be lost when the chairwoman questioned if the bleeds could throw off the count.
Again, that’s not the point. It appears she wants the public to focus on an “inadvertent” snafu — bleed — which would seem to be unintentional. That there were bleeding ballots at all is indicative of a crime.