That sounds warm and fuzzy, but I disagree that it should be assumed that a voter who willingly gives up custody of their ballot before seeing it counted has an honest and good faith belief that their vote would be counted. If they were susceptible to democratic propaganda, that's on them. I do realize that this is irrelevant to a SCOTUS decision. Has there ever been a court-ordered redo on an election? I just think that it's more likely that they allow the election night count to stand.
Why would SCOTUS call a re-vote rather than saying that the count after election night is irrevocably damaged, and the election night tally stands?
That sounds warm and fuzzy, but I disagree that it should be assumed that a voter who willingly gives up custody of their ballot before seeing it counted has an honest and good faith belief that their vote would be counted. If they were susceptible to democratic propaganda, that's on them. I do realize that this is irrelevant to a SCOTUS decision. Has there ever been a court-ordered redo on an election? I just think that it's more likely that they allow the election night count to stand.