There’s another fairly comprehensive summary of the proceedings at Powerline.
To me, it seems pretty obvious that this lawsuit by Lake inevitably suffers from the built-in handicap of all such suits, which is that proof is well-nigh impossible. The type of election fraud lawsuit that tends to succeed is one in which the alleged fraud is on the micro level: for example, such-and-such person submitted three ballots instead of one.
But that’s not of great import in the scheme of things in terms of election outcome, although it needs to be prosecuted in order to serve as discouragement to and punishment for the behavior. In contrast, although the sort of large-scale fraudulent behavior that Lake is alleging seems very plausible, and her lawyers have amassed a lot of evidence that it probably occurred, they cannot prove it for the very same reasons that it’s possible and perhaps even likely that it happened in the first place: for example, chain of custody problems plus a ridiculously unwieldy and complex set of procedures that seem far more bizarre than in most states. The secret ballot adds to all of this difficulty in proving anything, because the number of votes lost for candidate A versus candidate B cannot be reconstructed after the fact.
The election process needs to be made more secure and more simple. Until and unless this is done, these problems will recur. With voting, an ounce of prevention is worth ten thousand tons of cure, because there is no effective cure possible in court after the fact – unless this court really really surprises me. Courts don’t want to undermine faith in the process by invalidating it, but faith in the process is already undermined by learning about the vulnerabilities inherent in the process itself.
The post More on Kari Lake’s election challenge trial appeared first on The New Neo.