It is the lack of a standard, and the on the record testimony, which was uncontested, that similar ballots were treated differently
Well, this case was obviously only about the recount, not the original vote. But it doesn't seem a big stretch to argue that without any statewide standard, similar ballots will be counted differently, not to mention the inherent differences in using punch-card machines with a 3% error rate in one county vs. touch-screen machines with a 0% error rate in another county. And it's already being argued in a number of lawsuits that have been filed in Georgia.
If the USC meant by "present circumstances", any case where you count similar ballots differently, it would have been clearer to say so. That was not the meaning most reporters and lawyers took from it, nor the most straightforward English meaning, which understands 'present circumstances' to mean the circumstances at present, right now, in this case. Not other circumstances which resemble present circumstances in one way or another. |
