If there is enough evidence of fraud that it is impossible to determine who actually got more votes, there will be a special election with increased security. Theres precedent.

Also in PA when their supreme court ruled that ballots can be accepted up to 3 days after election day, thats not gonna fly. Theres precedent that judges are not supposed to write the rules for elections, thats the legislatures job. When that goes to SC it will get overruled, and a special election will get ordered.

https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2004/08060401-bed.html

“But courts have inherent power to protect the sovereign people, and those who are candidates for office or claiming title to or rights in an office from fraud or unlawful-ness . . . . “

State ex rel. Nicely v. Wildey, 197 N.E. 844, 847, 209 Ind. 1, 8-9 (Ind. 1935) (emphasis added).

“In contrast, the disruptive effects of deliberate conduct committed with the express purpose of obscuring the election outcome based on legal votes cast is likely to be more invidious and its results difficult to ascertain and quantify. Schemes that seek to discourage proper and confidential voting or that endeavor to introduce unintended or illegal votes into the outcome will inevitably produce outcome distortions that defy precise quantification.”

“In the present case, the undisputed trial court findings establish the occurrence of a deliberate series of actions that "perverted the absentee voting process and compromised the integrity and results of that election." “

“that there was "convincing evidence that established the pervasive fraud, illegal conduct, and violations of elections law," id., and that the misconduct was "voluminous, widespread and insidious." “

“The Pastrick campaign certainly knew or consciously intended that the results of their conduct would so inhibit opposing votes and inject invalid favorable votes as to profoundly undermine the integrity of the election and the trustworthiness of its outcome. And this objective was clearly achieved. Given the exceptional facts and circumstances of this case, any other conclusion is inconceivable.”

“Based upon this history, we conclude that eligible parties are authorized to contest elections on grounds of intentional misconduct under the Election Contest Statute and that the court has authority to order that a special election be conducted where it finds that the occurrence of a deliberate act or series of actions makes it impossible to determine which candidate received the highest number of votes.”

https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/1994/92-ca-57-2.html

When the amount of votes disqualified is substantial enough that it is impossible to discern the will of the voters, a special election is required. Stringer, 608 So. 2d at 1357. Whether the amount of disqualified votes is substantial enough to warrant a special election depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case