Like I said in general-chat, "when unequivocal evidence that the election in Georgia was conducted in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Federal and State Law, how can the election be legally certified? In a legal perspective, allowing the election to stand when it was Unconstitutional and unlawful, it would set a precendent that the Law no longer applies to Georgia elections. Other States would then follow suit if they see that no one is held accountable for noncompliance with the Law."
Not correct. The auditing process is explained in the statute. The court doesnt get to pick an expert. The court can order the state to conduct an audit per statute... The statute controls the process.
okay assume this happens with some envelopes ... then what? ... you suggested throwing out ballots based on a ratio but that's a probabilistic answer, yes it's the most probable answer mathematically but it's not the only possible answer and no judge is going to do that ... I'm saying they will argue on end about the subjective nature of signature validation before they throw out votes ... you're going to need some hard evidence of intention fraud NOT the poll workers did a poor job of signature validation
The way I see it, it is like a contract. If the contract is in violation of the law, it is invalid. The same, legally, applies to elections, if the Law is followed. If an election is in violation of the Law, it is invalid.
Do you see the flaw with that... If all it takes is a party to say "they don't trust the state department to perform that correctly" then they set precedent for this to happen in every future election by the losing candidate.
Which is why we have to require a real reason to request the relief sought.
Even if there was zero fraud in an election, if the election was conducted in violation of the law, it is invalid. That is an angle I would argue when there is concrete evidence showing the election laws were not followed.
the portion that was conducted illegally would be invalid, say for example the ballots returned after the original deadline was illegally extended would be invalid
You are arguing in circles. You seem to think that just because Team Trump doesnt trust the state to do things correctly that the Court has to order the State to let the Trump Team conduct the audit or an outside party.
That is not how the law works. Trump has to be able to establish a prima facia case that the States audit is flawed. We cannot simply assume it.
The assumption is that the State did things right not once but now twice about about to be 3 times all with the same result.
To allow an election to be certified when the election was clearly conducted in violation of the law, it will set a horendous precedent that complying with the law is irrelevent. Ones vote will become worthless and without meaning from that point on.
