5 ms·
(IANAL) > These are challenges of other states' laws > the votes that are validly cast under the procedure are still to be counted. The argument, as I interp
by deathanatos 6y ago
(IANAL)
> These are challenges of other states' laws
> the votes that are validly cast under the procedure are still to be counted.
The argument, as I interpret it, is that these votes were not validly cast, because they were not cast under the procedure established by the respective legislatures. That is, that the laws of the respective states were not followed; from the complaint:
> Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures.
Now, I don't know if that's true, since I don't know the laws of the various states involved, and in my skimming of the complaint, I didn't see where the complaint actually listed how the elections of the various states differed from their established law.
That said… on the whole I agree with you, particularly on standing.
- jcranmer 6y agoIt's about whether or not they were cast in a good-faith understanding of the law, as promulgated by official electoral authorities. So if the electoral commission says that by doing such-and-such, you can cast a vote--even if it erred in doing so--anyone who cast a vote in such a manner should still have its vote counted. In the NC (I think) case where it was argued that the lifting of the ballot signature requirement was improper, which was eventually upheld by the court, the court still held that the state must count all votes that didn't have the ballot signature so long as they had been cast before the court's ruling.