from:
“The Secretary of State’s office said the machines were inspected by a bipartisan voting system certification committee most recently in 2021, though Griffin complained that Commissioners were not permitted to inspect the Dominion machines.”
imho the court interpretation of the relevant laws seems overly biased in favor of the state, leaving the county commissioners no leeway to exercise any independent judgment, thus thwarting the intent of the law.
Did the county commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? Apparently there was no formal procedure for determining the fitness of the counting method at the county level. If there is no formal procedure, then is it the fault of the county commission that it could be construed as arbitrary and capricious? I trust not, since the commission evidently has no inherent power to change the law by itself.
Ordinarily I would then drift towards the questions of who the trier of fact is and who the trier of law is for this particular situation. Again, however, there is no formal procedure, so it is not clear to me if these terms would even apply.
The reason I felt OK bringing up various forms of evidence was because various liberals seem to be claiming that no evidence of fraud exists, thus inviting the question of what constitutes various types of evidence and evidence hierarchies.
Would the reasonable person standard apply to a situation like this?
from:
The reasonable person standard refers to a hypothetical, average person’s reaction to the actual circumstances of alleged illegal activities such as harassment, negligence or discrimination. It serves as a comparative standard for courts to assess liability.
If there is no overt procedure to follow, then perhaps the “reasonable person” standard could be construed to prevail. The commissioners might be able to take some legal shelter from this, especially if the legislature has not performed its duty in enacting enforcable laws and procedures.