Isn’t a replacement a given? Why would it have to be specified? Seems like a frivolous excuse.
It sounds frivolous to me. Even if they didn't have enough valid recall signatures, I believe, there is a clause in the law that allows the petition to continue for a specified period of time (I think it is two weeks). If the whole thing is invalidated, they can still start fresh, and this time people will be even more pissed off.
Ironically this is what separates the pubbies from the libs. The pubbies think in broad strokes and focus on the big picture while the libs nit-pick and hair-split.
When Washington state had its governorship stolen by the left we mounted a re-vote campaign. The same thing happened where the libs scrutinized both petitions and statutes and then would file objections based on the slightest of technical errors.
Since the entire state is ruled by the left (right up to the supreme court) most of the objections stuck and we would find ourselves right back at square one. It pays to retain the best liars, er, lawyers that money can buy!
First the petitions are verified, then an election date is set, then Morse loses the recall election, he loses office, then there is another election to replace him. Only then is there an election with candidate choice on a ballot.