That's a fair point. Something that's been very disappointing to me is the courts have not wanted to even hear cases on election fraud. It feels like what's the point of having election law if the courts don't want to touch controversies around elections?
One rationale that makes sense is courts are squeamish about stepping into election …
That's a fair point. Something that's been very disappointing to me is the courts have not wanted to even hear cases on election fraud. It feels like what's the point of having election law if the courts don't want to touch controversies around elections?
One rationale that makes sense is courts are squeamish about stepping into election controversies, because they don't want the appearance of preferring one candidate over another, one side over another; they don't want to seem political. However, enough courts have consistently made excuses for why election controversies can't be tried in them that I also think some of them are corrupt. I think that's plausible, given what we've seen with how judges in certain locales have behaved with Trump.
That's a fair point. Something that's been very disappointing to me is the courts have not wanted to even hear cases on election fraud. It feels like what's the point of having election law if the courts don't want to touch controversies around elections?
One rationale that makes sense is courts are squeamish about stepping into election controversies, because they don't want the appearance of preferring one candidate over another, one side over another; they don't want to seem political. However, enough courts have consistently made excuses for why election controversies can't be tried in them that I also think some of them are corrupt. I think that's plausible, given what we've seen with how judges in certain locales have behaved with Trump.