Defendants altered the rules and procedures of the 2020 Federal Elections in all 50 states, and including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (collectively, with the 50 States, the “Voting Districts”) in a manner that severely and pervasively violated the election integrity safeguards enacted by Congress in the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as amended
Well that's terrible. Shocking even. Tut tut, we'll try to do better next time.
But wait!
Accordingly, the only appropriate remedy is a new congressional election conducted pursuant to the Election Integrity Safeguards, and additional security measures that should be imposed by the Court to ensure the conduct that occurred herein cannot affect the new election. For example, such measures could include a 100% in person paper ballot election, with government-issued ID required, and supervised by the People over live video feeds to ensure proper counting. The Court must ensure a new congressional election that should be the most transparent and closely-supervised in history
Granted. This court orders that a new congressional election shall be conducted, at the scheduled time in November 2022, in greater accordance with the Election Integrity Safeguards, with government-issued ID required in any states that so legislate. State governments should also make efforts to implement the live video feeds thing, within limits of intruding on the privacy of voters. Banning "postal votes" would egregiously limit the voting rights of frail and unwell people, also serving military and emergency services, so states are specifically enjoined from limiting their use to that extent. This court approves the intention to make the next congressional election the most transparent and closely-supervised in history, however lacks any means among those offered to make it so.
It is with great forbearance that Plaintiffs' implied demand for a supernumerary election with unreasonable and unconstitutional limitations, is overlooked for lack of specificity. Also note that a less tolerant judge would rule lead counsel's attempt to surreptitiously smoke something under their bench, to be contempt of court. Dismissed!
