the burden of proof should be to prove that the votes are legal. i.e. if you don't have solid proof that they're legal votes, you assume they're illegal and throw them out. requiring someone to prove that they're "illegal" is silly. you can't prove a negative.
the burden of proof should be to prove that the votes are legal. i.e. if you don't have solid proof that they're legal votes, you assume they're illegal and throw them out. requiring someone to prove that they're "illegal" is silly. you can't prove a negative.