The audit will be useful for SCOTUS but worthless in overturning the certification automatically. that is why every state rushed to certify because it is basically impossible to overturn.
Even if the audit shows 100% that Trump won, which it would, it would not automatically decertify the state. The Trump team would have to take the audit findings to court. The Audit is going to take until just before the state has to seat electors which means its impossible to decertify. Only SCOTUS and legislatures at this point.
Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought.
Am only a 2L so the barred attorney can answer in more detail beyond my caliber. However, if I understand this correctly, you may not audit a finding that is in progress, as you'd be auditing objectively incomplete data. It appears that once the certification is brought, THEN there are grounds for audit as you are saying "I have suffered damage by the certification of this election (must have harm, I think the bad certification is the harm per se) which I believe to have misappropriated my vote intentionally and thus damaged my enfranchised rights, and my sought remedy for harm suffered is an audit of its legitimacy." If u/zipodk could correct me if I am in error I would appreciate it, trying to learn a bit here.
Hello 2L (and you might be doing more stat interp these days than me)
Probably the biggest factor in the decision is that the question is moot since certification happened, and this was a request for an injunction to...stop certification. But that's not to dismiss your points, let me try:
"you may not audit a finding that is in progress": they say the right to an audit (should there be one) (1) is not a right for it to happen pre-certification (less than that they're saying it's an impossibility to do so); (2) the language seems to read that the audit wasn't intended to come before certification; (3) that the court feels "results" must mean "certified results" to be reasonably interpreted as anything meaningful; (4) then to back it up the three precedents they cite all come after a count has happened.. so it's less, if it matters, that you can't audit any finding that is in progress, it is that "we" (the court) don't have a "finding" until we have results and we're going to to take that to mean the end results post-certification since anything prior to that are efforts contributing to - rather than actually being - result, + we don't think anything gives you the right to stop a process to certify mid-process to certify
"no harm unless certified": I didn't see them taking the ~"you haven't been harmed yet" (or "you have been" / haven't been harmed) approach on this, but I think I see what you're saying as an explanation
As an aside (since they're dissenting), the dissenting opinion bifurcated "audit" into process-based audits ("not appear critical whether they occur before the election results are finally certified") and accuracy-based audits ("after preliminary outcomes are announced, but before official certification of election results"), saying in some sense that process-based audit finding problems might not stop certification (or therefore require an injunction), but we don't have the constitutional questions answered about which audit is the remedy
I can't say it much beyond what I know because that’d be speculation, but the generally held definition of the word certification is “a document attesting the truth of a fact or statement”. so it would seem that the certification process of the state is a formal testament by the board of canvassers, election board, some sort of election regulation body or authority stating in a binding manner “we do hereby attest to the truth of this election and its result”.
I think this is right because, of course when anybody says they're telling the truth but they were actually lying, you might seek out a legal remedy to challenge their character and their assertions of the truth if what have said caused damage to you. Essentially, it appears it can be boiled down to that the certification is a statement that is grounds for a legal challenge. I suppose that in another mirrored clown world, unlike the one we live in now, if there was a state where the president was a clear victor but that state refused to certify their election, in favor of that candidate (notwithstanding fraud in this hypothetical), then the claim would be the same but reversed.
IE “you gave this election to my opponent and there was arguable and probable wrongdoing in the election, so I challenge it as illegitimate” (Trump currently) might be legally pursued the same as the statement “This was a clearly fair election an I want it fair and square, yet you refuse to grant me the credit that I have rightfully won by virtue of this election. I challenge that you should certify this result because it is obvious your resistance is baseless.”
(The second reads differently if there is fraud in the scenario of course, as we're seeing now, but that seems to be the gist of it.)
Again, I'm still a law student and not yet a barred attorney at this time. I'm trying to learn, and I learn best by explaining topics to others best I can, and am corrected when necessary. If someone could do me that courtesy if needed, I'd appreciate it. Hope this helps out with understanding.
so we can still do an audit right?
The audit will be useful for SCOTUS but worthless in overturning the certification automatically. that is why every state rushed to certify because it is basically impossible to overturn.
Even if the audit shows 100% that Trump won, which it would, it would not automatically decertify the state. The Trump team would have to take the audit findings to court. The Audit is going to take until just before the state has to seat electors which means its impossible to decertify. Only SCOTUS and legislatures at this point.
Am only a 2L so the barred attorney can answer in more detail beyond my caliber. However, if I understand this correctly, you may not audit a finding that is in progress, as you'd be auditing objectively incomplete data. It appears that once the certification is brought, THEN there are grounds for audit as you are saying "I have suffered damage by the certification of this election (must have harm, I think the bad certification is the harm per se) which I believe to have misappropriated my vote intentionally and thus damaged my enfranchised rights, and my sought remedy for harm suffered is an audit of its legitimacy." If u/zipodk could correct me if I am in error I would appreciate it, trying to learn a bit here.
Hello 2L (and you might be doing more stat interp these days than me)
Probably the biggest factor in the decision is that the question is moot since certification happened, and this was a request for an injunction to...stop certification. But that's not to dismiss your points, let me try:
"you may not audit a finding that is in progress": they say the right to an audit (should there be one) (1) is not a right for it to happen pre-certification (less than that they're saying it's an impossibility to do so); (2) the language seems to read that the audit wasn't intended to come before certification; (3) that the court feels "results" must mean "certified results" to be reasonably interpreted as anything meaningful; (4) then to back it up the three precedents they cite all come after a count has happened.. so it's less, if it matters, that you can't audit any finding that is in progress, it is that "we" (the court) don't have a "finding" until we have results and we're going to to take that to mean the end results post-certification since anything prior to that are efforts contributing to - rather than actually being - result, + we don't think anything gives you the right to stop a process to certify mid-process to certify
"no harm unless certified": I didn't see them taking the ~"you haven't been harmed yet" (or "you have been" / haven't been harmed) approach on this, but I think I see what you're saying as an explanation
As an aside (since they're dissenting), the dissenting opinion bifurcated "audit" into process-based audits ("not appear critical whether they occur before the election results are finally certified") and accuracy-based audits ("after preliminary outcomes are announced, but before official certification of election results"), saying in some sense that process-based audit finding problems might not stop certification (or therefore require an injunction), but we don't have the constitutional questions answered about which audit is the remedy
Can you explain what is being certified when there a acknowledged legal problems with the vote? Is it just, "Yep. We counted what we saw." ?
I can't say it much beyond what I know because that’d be speculation, but the generally held definition of the word certification is “a document attesting the truth of a fact or statement”. so it would seem that the certification process of the state is a formal testament by the board of canvassers, election board, some sort of election regulation body or authority stating in a binding manner “we do hereby attest to the truth of this election and its result”.
I think this is right because, of course when anybody says they're telling the truth but they were actually lying, you might seek out a legal remedy to challenge their character and their assertions of the truth if what have said caused damage to you. Essentially, it appears it can be boiled down to that the certification is a statement that is grounds for a legal challenge. I suppose that in another mirrored clown world, unlike the one we live in now, if there was a state where the president was a clear victor but that state refused to certify their election, in favor of that candidate (notwithstanding fraud in this hypothetical), then the claim would be the same but reversed.
IE “you gave this election to my opponent and there was arguable and probable wrongdoing in the election, so I challenge it as illegitimate” (Trump currently) might be legally pursued the same as the statement “This was a clearly fair election an I want it fair and square, yet you refuse to grant me the credit that I have rightfully won by virtue of this election. I challenge that you should certify this result because it is obvious your resistance is baseless.” (The second reads differently if there is fraud in the scenario of course, as we're seeing now, but that seems to be the gist of it.)
Again, I'm still a law student and not yet a barred attorney at this time. I'm trying to learn, and I learn best by explaining topics to others best I can, and am corrected when necessary. If someone could do me that courtesy if needed, I'd appreciate it. Hope this helps out with understanding.
So we will be likely granted an audit
But fuck dude, are we going to make it on time? I don't want this to go to a house vote, God knows how many more RINOs lurk
I think that's right.
Door is still open to that, this didn't change it at all