precludes the need for any "proof" whatsoever.

However, lacking that, yes, the election officials should be made to prove that the procedures that were actually used were fair.

It's a retroactive proving of the process. A security audit in light of a system change. If that can be done, there's no need to prove a negative.

Your objection about the rule changes is, of course, that it allowed more of the wrong kind of people to vote legally. It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern.

Disagreements between branches of state government should have defaulted to the legislature, but didn't in most of the states in question. Especially true in PA, where the legislature specifically voted against implementing the same rules that the court then imposed anyway.

Even worse, they ignored Alito's court order to segregate ballots. (Which admittedly ended up being a moot point, other than showing general non-compliance.)

So yes, I think the rule changes are a reason to disqualify either votes or an entire election.

>It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern.

That's a political opinion, not a legal one. Which makes it the legislators decision, not the state court's.

The judges properly disagreed with your absurd conclusion that it was "a reason to disqualify either votes or an entire election." That was far too large an ask.

>was legally justified.

Yes it does. That's what everyone is saying. Don't follow the rules, it doesn't count.

If Pence opened envelopes from the Trump electors on Wed, I'd bet you'd think the rules for which votes to reject were important again.

>The judges properly disagreed

No. They punted, based on discretional original jurisdiction and/or standing, depending on the case. (Both based on bad caselaw, themselves.)

Which is ashame, because had they heard the case, it could have prevented all of this.

Complete nonsense that somehow manages to stay somewhat intelligible.