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
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