So what is required, a preponderance of the evidence or reasonable doubt???
Election law usually deals with certainties. Hard numbers interact in certain ways.
Assume an election contest with proven fraud, or questionable ballots (don’t know/can’t trust choice) that numbers 3,000. That does not, of itself, cause an issue. The court next looks to the margin of victor. If the fraud or unknown is 3,000, and the margin is 3,001, the contest is decided in favor of the winner.
The only people who believe these results are valid are the DEMs. Yeah, sure there was fraud, they’ll say, but not enough to make up the margin, and you can’t prove a sufficient number of fraudulent ballots.
On any given ballot, preponderance is not enough, preponderance being 50/50. I think the standard on a single ballot is something like reasonable certainty. If you aren’t reasonably sure what the voter wanted, toss it.
Tough case with all the single race ballots. POTUS only, nothing down ballot. No question how they voted, crystal clear. But there is no way on earth to know if the mark was made by a legal voter. You can suspect, sure. But you can’t prove. Even the statistical improbabilities of 10,000 to 1 is not enough to prove.
Up to the court to deal with it. That’s why they make the big bucks. They’ll pick whatever outcome suits their political preference, and justify the decision with 100 pages of insomnia-breaking prose.
“So what is required, a preponderance of the evidence or reasonable doubt???”
Rudy is saying they have both:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3903777/posts
This is a continuance of the deep state coup. What previously was tin-foil hat paranoia is reality. The deep state is real and they are powerful.
I had the same question. Maybe the statistical analysis will be enough to point auditors in the right direction to find actual evidence of fraud. But without actual evidence of fraud, not sure how statistical evidence of it is going to turn anything.