i disagree on the last part. the voting method was changed in opposition to the method proscribed in the laws that existed prior to the incident in the form of the state constitution. therefore it is invalid to allow these votes. so the law existed beforehand, was violated, and as a deterrant to future fuxing afound with the voting methods they will take it up and rule against the lower court. to me this seems the more logical result. otherwise they set the equally damaging precedent that 'muh voters' are an adequate justification for all kinds of election fuckery, where the perpetrators can use the spectre of voter disenfranchisement to grant a kind of blanket immunity.