BMX Bandit said:

---

on the starting a civil war, does that happen only if SCOTUS doesn't take the case or decides Texas doesn't have standing?

or does it still start a civil war if SCOTUS decides Texas has standing, but rules PA, GA, etc. win the case?

---

Excellent question...I don't know...

At some point, it has to come down to this:

Is there clear evidence of election fraud in this election or not?

If there is, then I argue that ANY fraud proven, no matter how benign it may seem, raises doubt about the election as a whole, and if there is any "proven" fraud, then the whole process in each state where some form of fraud is "prove" needs to be thrown out because it is tainted...

Having arguments about "okay, so there was fraud, but there wasn't enough to change the outcome" is the wrong way to look at this...

Any fraud "proven" means the whole thing is tainted, and the results simply cannot be trusted...

If the court finds enough evidence that some fraud occurred, then they need to step in and tell the state legislatures to take action and appoint their electors...

Now, the final outcome might still be the same...so be it...

But it at least takes the fraud angle out of it and allows the law to be used to resolve the issue constitutionally...

If you don't, and you just leave this dangling in the wind, you are asking for trouble...

Lorne Malvo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

if you won't let us disenfranchise 39,000,000 people in four states because we don't like the way that those states ran their elections, it's gonna be civil war!

---

Your libs should have thought about that before they unlawfully changed their laws before the election.

---

define unlawfully.

BMX Bandit said:

---

on the starting a civil war, does that happen only if SCOTUS doesn't take the case or decides Texas doesn't have standing?

or does it still start a civil war if SCOTUS decides Texas has standing, but rules PA, GA, etc. win the case?

---

Revolution is whenever a critical mass no longer believes in the legitimacy of the government and attempts to rewrite the fundamental laws under which they are governed. Civil War requires opposition and armed conflict. The exact event kicking off either is a trivia question.

What exactly started the American civil war? Everyone says slavery, but what was the actual event? Secession happened when Lincoln was elected, the civil war proper started over a resupply mission.

I think revolution, secession, civil war are unlikely outcomes. But if it does happen, I think it's kind of hard to predict what will trigger it. I do think that 40-60% of Americans are questioning the legitimacy of an increasingly powerful and intrusive central government, and that the events of the next few weeks are going to continue to inform people's opinions on legitimacy.

RedHand said:

---

You could read the Texas filing or any 3 pages of this thread.

Reading is hard but I think you can do it

---

what did the supreme courts of these 4 states have to say about the legality of their own states' election laws?

BMX Bandit said:

---

on the starting a civil war, does that happen only if SCOTUS doesn't take the case or decides Texas doesn't have standing?

or does it still start a civil war if SCOTUS decides Texas has standing, but rules PA, GA, etc. win the case?

---

Uncharted Territory. A F* election, a media nobody trust, total lack of Transparency. Who knows WTFIGO. But its clear there is serious problems with the foundations.

Actually of all the people I trust regarding the law on this, its is you and Hawg and you are on different sides. Just trying to figure it out but I am not a law guy. I'm a math and software guy and I know that end of things is FUBARed to hell.

Its not looking good. We needs some leadership, not partisan ship. I have always liked your pragmatic approach. Looking to you, bud, for the law end of things.

mesocosm said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Essentially, you have multiple states coming forward saying their voters have been disenfranchised by the actions of a few states, and these actions harm the voters of the plaintiff states...

SCOTUS needs to make some ruling one way or the other...you can't leave this out there...

I agree with hawg...this is how civil wars start...

---

This will die on the steps of SCOTUS, probably today. Biden will be President. There will be no civil war.

---

We shall see...

BigRobSA said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Lorne Malvo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

if you won't let us disenfranchise 39,000,000 people in four states because we don't like the way that those states ran their elections, it's gonna be civil war!

---

Your libs should have thought about that before they unlawfully changed their laws before the election.

---

define unlawfully.

---

I'm just a dumb brown who can't figure out how to get an ID (according to Dems) but from what I've seen, by not following the guidelines to do so in the Constitution.

---

i don't think there are any guidelines in the constitution around getting an id to vote, no?

BMX Bandit said:

---

on the starting a civil war, does that happen only if SCOTUS doesn't take the case or decides Texas doesn't have standing?

or does it still start a civil war if SCOTUS decides Texas has standing, but rules PA, GA, etc. win the case?

---

It could start with literally any ruling they do. That's how volatile the situation is right now. That is, for or against doesn't matter much. This thing could easily devolve.

This is why the lawsuit scares the elites and establishment do much. It forces everything to come to a head and has taken control of the situation from them. They no longer have any real control over what happens now.

FireAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

on the starting a civil war, does that happen only if SCOTUS doesn't take the case or decides Texas doesn't have standing?

or does it still start a civil war if SCOTUS decides Texas has standing, but rules PA, GA, etc. win the case?

---

Excellent question...I don't know...

At some point, it has to come down to this:

Is there clear evidence of election fraud in this election or not?

If there is, then I argue that ANY fraud proven, no matter how benign it may seem, raises doubt about the election as a whole, and if there is any "proven" fraud, then the whole process in each state where some form of fraud is "prove" needs to be thrown out because it is tainted...

Having arguments about "okay, so there was fraud, but there wasn't enough to change the outcome" is the wrong way to look at this...

Any fraud "proven" means the whole thing is tainted, and the results simply cannot be trusted...

If the court finds enough evidence that some fraud occurred, then they need to step in and tell the state legislatures to take action and appoint their electors...

Now, the final outcome might still be the same...so be it...

But it at least takes the fraud angle out of it and allows the law to be used to resolve the issue constitutionally...

If you don't, and you just leave this dangling in the wind, you are asking for trouble...

---

Good stuff. You said it better than I did.

I understand that liberty is most important, but I'm not sure that people have contemplated what happen in a civil war. Absolute destruction of the economy. Netflix is gone.Saturday night beers and football are gone. The gluttonous amounts of food we "rely" on are gone. At least one lost generation from education.

Lastly, do you think the leftists are simply going to let this go? Have never studied history and learned what leftists will do to maintain power? They will u leash the full force of the US military upon the revolting states. The complicit world media will not cover the atrocities and will spin the rebels as evil racists, etc.

Are we really ready for this? Maybe people say so, but I don't think so.

At this point, the better solution is to keep electing conservative state and local government.

Ag87H2O said:

---

captkirk said:

---

---

Fredo is one Grade A sniveling, self-righteous, beta male.

His tripe is hard to listen to after four years of the Democrats doing everything they could to take out a dully elected president on false pretenses.

If we find ourselves in a Constitutional crisis, it's one of the Democrats own making.

---

Unelected tyrants they are, CNN and ilk. The disasters to come will be in large part be on and the fault of their class. At least Biden knows in theory he is supposed to represent all, even non-supporters.

Lorne Malvo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

if you won't let us disenfranchise 39,000,000 people in four states because we don't like the way that those states ran their elections, it's gonna be civil war!

---

Your libs should have thought about that before they unlawfully changed their laws before the election.

---

The only things getting "disenfranchised" are the fraudulent and illegal votes. The remainder simply become votes for guy who didn't win.

queso1 said:

---

I understand that liberty is most important, but I'm not sure that people have contemplated what happen in a civil war. Absolute destruction of the economy. Netflix is gone.Saturday night beers and football are gone. The gluttonous amounts of food we "rely" on are gone. At least one lost generation from education.

Lastly, do you think the leftists are simply going to let this go? Have never studied history and learned what leftists will do to maintain power? They will u leash the full force of the US military upon the revolting states. The complicit world media will not cover the atrocities and will spin the rebels as evil racists, etc.

Are we really ready for this? Maybe people say so, but I don't think so.

At this point, the better solution is to keep electing conservative state and local government.

---

It's not a pretty picture for sure...

schmendeler said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Lorne Malvo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

if you won't let us disenfranchise 39,000,000 people in four states because we don't like the way that those states ran their elections, it's gonna be civil war!

---

Your libs should have thought about that before they unlawfully changed their laws before the election.

---

define unlawfully.

---

I'm just a dumb brown who can't figure out how to get an ID (according to Dems) but from what I've seen, by not following the guidelines to do so in the Constitution.

---

i don't think there are any guidelines in the constitution around getting an id to vote, no?

---

You asked to define illegal. I defined it how I've read it...as not following the guidelines to make changes.

schmendeler said:

---

Lorne Malvo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

if you won't let us disenfranchise 39,000,000 people in four states because we don't like the way that those states ran their elections, it's gonna be civil war!

---

Your libs should have thought about that before they unlawfully changed their laws before the election.

---

define unlawfully.

---

Entering a consent agreement between a Sec of State and a Plaintiff to alter timelines and ballot requirements, without the approval of the legislature.

Quote:

---

Actually of all the people I trust regarding the law on this, its is you and Hawg and you are on different sides. Just trying to figure it out but I am not a law guy. I'm a math and software guy and I know that end of things is FUBARed to hell.

---

BMX and I aren't on different sides, we just disagree on the way forward and how to get there. Neither of us know for sure what SCOTUS will or won't do. We both think they won't actually decide the election outcome. How they avoid doing that is the disagreement.

I think they use the constitutional exit ramp, even if they have to tap dance a bit on standing (such as they did in deciding Roe v. Wade) and he doesn't.

But since you are a math and software guy and as you said that end of the election is FUBARed, is there any doubt in your mind than the results of the election were manipulated?

leftcoastaggie said:

---

eric76 said:

---

He apparently wants to do away with all voting that does not take place on election day.

I can't seem to cut and paste from the document. There is a paragraph on page 3 (page 8 of the pdf) beginning with "The Framers of the Constitution in 1787" that is interesting in which he claims that the framers of the Constitution expected all states to vote in the same manner to select their electors on election day.

"Congress certainly did not intend to open the floodgates to allow persons to vote in a manner that varied dramatically from one state to another, or where in person voters were treated disparately from mail-in voters." Correct me if I'm wrong, but were there far more differences than in how different states handled their selection of electors? Weren't some selected by elections and some by the state governments? If I'm not mistaken, in some states property owners could vote, including women, but not in others? I'd think that Congress was fine with leaving it up to the states to make the decision for themselves and countenanced far more differences than we have today.

He also appears to think that Act 77 was imposed by the governor rather than passed into law by the legislature and signed by the governor.

---

Not to mention that he also misspelled his own name on his filing.

---

leftcoastaggie always on the case!! Adding spellcheck to his resume along with resident scorekeeper and top gloater..... great job!! Keep it up!!!!

Can you help me understand the concern with regard to standing?

I don't think the Supreme Court looks to punt on this.

FireAg said:

---

Can you help me understand the concern with regard to standing?

---

Has to do with whether the State of Texas has a constitutional claim that its electors and citizens were harmed under the equal protection clause and due process under the 14th Amendment because they conducted their election within the rules and the defendant states did not.

The question becomes if equal protection and due process are rights, then there should be a remedy for deprivation of those rights. And this where the catch-22 comes into play.

In fact, multiple parties (Amistad Project most notedly) sued to stop the illegal procedures being implemented in the defendant states before the election but the courts turned them away because no harm had been suffered yet. Now after the election when the harm has occurred, those same states are arguing that they waited too long under the equitable doctrine of laches.

Again, if equal protection is a right but there was no remedy before the election, there must be a remedy after the harm is suffered according to Marbury v. Madison. If not, then equal protection no longer exists under the law.

Yes to all of this. Also, equal protection has been used for a crap ton of lefty/civil rights claims. I kinda doubt the intent of the CCP-dems is to undermine this fundamental right. I do hope the leftist SCOTUS members at least are forced to address this in some way, instead of saying basically "nope, election's over, CCP won."

aggiehawg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Can you help me understand the concern with regard to standing?

---

Has to do with whether the State of Texas has a constitutional claim that its electors and citizens were harmed under the equal protection clause and due process under the 14th Amendment because they conducted their election within the rules and the defendant states did not.

The question becomes if equal protection and due process are rights, then there should be a remedy for deprivation of those rights. And this where the catch-22 comes into play.

In fact, multiple parties (Amistad Project most notedly) sued to stop the illegal procedures being implemented in the defendant states before the election but the courts turned them away because no harm had been suffered yet. Now after the election when the harm has occurred, those same states are arguing that they waited too long under the equitable doctrine of laches.

Again, if equal protection is a right but there was no remedy before the election, there must be a remedy after the harm is suffered according to Marbury v. Madison. If not, then equal protection no longer exists under the law.

---

Okay, that's how I view this myself...but I don't see a concern with regard to standing...this seems pretty cut and dry to me...

We live in a country of 50 states + 1 district...

We ALL have our own rules for this and that as states, but a national election, as conducted by each state, has an affect on us ALL...

If laws were broken by one state, while exercising their rights as a state, and the broken laws affect all 50 states + 1 district on a national scale, then the states as a whole, as part of the overall republic, have a right to be heard...

FireAg said:

---

queso1 said:

---

I understand that liberty is most important, but I'm not sure that people have contemplated what happen in a civil war. Absolute destruction of the economy. Netflix is gone.Saturday night beers and football are gone. The gluttonous amounts of food we "rely" on are gone. At least one lost generation from education.

Lastly, do you think the leftists are simply going to let this go? Have never studied history and learned what leftists will do to maintain power? They will u leash the full force of the US military upon the revolting states. The complicit world media will not cover the atrocities and will spin the rebels as evil racists, etc.

Are we really ready for this? Maybe people say so, but I don't think so.

At this point, the better solution is to keep electing conservative state and local government.

---

It's not a pretty picture for sure...

---

The best solution is what you are seeing now. MASS coordination between states. Big enough numbers can prevent or strictly limit violence by simply nullifying tyrannical actions by sheer weight of remonstrance.

Probably states should start regularly meeting about just what nationwide sweeping changes they will even tolerate from D.C, from either party. (But Republicans rarely attempt to change things fundamentally).

Everyone is stuck in 1860. Look at break ups post Cold War where there was mass coverage exposing details in real time. The huge Soviet Union had remonstrance and nullification pattern without such carnage, and they were a full blown tyranny. Even mighty China had to scrounge around for a month, and go outside to distant regional forces to find units willing to crack down.

Stop talking Civil War. Mass disobedience with a setup like this would be more than enough to force some reforms.

titan said:

---

FireAg said:

---

queso1 said:

---

I understand that liberty is most important, but I'm not sure that people have contemplated what happen in a civil war. Absolute destruction of the economy. Netflix is gone.Saturday night beers and football are gone. The gluttonous amounts of food we "rely" on are gone. At least one lost generation from education.

Lastly, do you think the leftists are simply going to let this go? Have never studied history and learned what leftists will do to maintain power? They will u leash the full force of the US military upon the revolting states. The complicit world media will not cover the atrocities and will spin the rebels as evil racists, etc.

Are we really ready for this? Maybe people say so, but I don't think so.

At this point, the better solution is to keep electing conservative state and local government.

---

It's not a pretty picture for sure...

---

The best solution is what you are seeing now. MASS coordination between states. Big enough numbers can prevent or strictly limit violence by simply nullifying tyrannical actions by sheer weight of remonstrance.

Probably states should start regularly meeting about just what nationwide sweeping changes they will even tolerate from D.C, from either party. (But Republicans rarely attempt to change things fundamentally).

Everyone is stuck in 1860. Look at break ups post Cold War where there was mass coverage exposing details in real time. The huge Soviet Union had remonstrance and nullification pattern without such carnage, and they were a full blown tyranny. Even mighty China had to scrounge around for a month, and go outside to distant regional forces to find units willing to crack down.

Stop talking Civil War. Mass disobedience with a setup like this would be more than enough to force some reforms.

---

This used to be called "The Senate."

Repeal the 17th.

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Some quotes from the Ohio brief:

Quote:

---

Article II of the Constitution directs that "[e]ach State shall appoint" presidential electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Art. II, 1, cl.2. Whatever "the Legislature thereof" means, it does not mean "the courts thereof." Thus, when state election codes dictate the manner for appointing presidential electors, state courts must respect the legislature's work: they may not change the rules by which electors are chosen through judge-made doctrines or by rewriting statutes in the guise of interpretation.

---

Quote:

---

Precisely because Ohio holds this view about the meaning of the Electors Clause, it cannot support Texas's plea for relief. Texas seeks a "remand to the State legislatures to allocate electors in a manner consistent with the Constitution."... Such an order would violate, not honor, the Electors Clause. Federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to change the legislatively chosen method for appointing presidential electors. And so federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to order legislatures to appoint electors without regard to the results of an already-completed election.

---

Quote:

---

The courts have no more business ordering the People's representatives how to choose electors than they do ordering the People themselves how to choose their dinners.

---

Quote:

---

It may prove difficult at this late date to fashion a remedy that does not create equal or greater harms. But there will be an election in 2024, another four years after that, and so on. If only to prevent the doubts that have tainted this election from arising again in some future election, the Court should decide, as soon as possible, the extent of the power that the Electors Clause confers on state legislatures and withholds from other actors.

---

Interesting take. I like the federalism.

However, I tend to disagree. SCOTUS has told the states multiple times that their election method violates the equal protection clause, right? How is this any different?

---

Cites, please.

---

Not gonna get them.

However, just look at the Civil War era / Jim Crow era. I'm sure you will find some.

Citizens United filed an amicus just this morning. I thought the deadline was yesterday but they keep coming in...

Joseydog said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats a standing issue I think Texas will have trouble getting around. From the PA brief:

Quote:

---

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]").

---

---

I agree. But when that point has been raised here in the past it was laughed off the stage. We'll see who is right if the court actually addresses it in the denial

---

I think SCOTUS will dispose of this case on standing. I would not be shocked if all Justices agree that Texas does not have standing.

---

At this point, I would be really surprised if SCOTUS didn't address the Article 1, section 2 issues. But, you never know.

---

They may address it as urged by Ohio, but I think the ultimate ruling is that Texas (and the other states) lack standing.

---

My bet is that this is the most likely outcome. Not sure which way they will rule.

However, this is probably what Texas is really looking for. You need to be seeking relief, so they are looking for an injunction to force the vote to the legislature. That is hugely unlikely. But, if SCOTUS says that legislatures CAN meet and vote on electors, that is a win for conservatives, in my opinion.

eric76 said:

---

Ramdiesel said:

---

SLAM said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

hawg...

Does this have legs?

---

Hell if I know. But with all of these filings from all over the country, the pressure on SCOTUS to at least try to resolve something, anything, instead of tossing it out is tremendous. They have to be looking for an exit ramp. The combination of Article II Section One Clause 2 and the Twelfth Amendment is sitting there and there is precedent.

Throw it back to the state legislatures in the defendant states and hope for the best would be my inclination were I on the Court.

---

By doing nothing they effectively say this is okay. I don't see how SCOTUS can't make a ruling here. The entire world is watching, sending it back down is not a wise idea at this point.

---

I think they send it back to the State Legislatures to decide by a certain time and some or all of these State Leglislatures will be deadlocked on how to make the decision and wont have the intestinal fortitude to make the decision as they are on the ground in these cities where the rioting is likely to be occurring over the election so neither candidate will get to 270...Their political careers in these State Legislatures could be on the line...

Since neither candidate gets to 270, it gets tossed to the House of Representatives and State delegates to decide...In which case Trump probably wins.

---

That takes us back to the question of electors. With 538 electors, it takes a majority of 270. If there are fewer because the Supreme Court decertifies a number of electors, then majority will be fewer. If the electors from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are removed, then the majority needed should be smaller and Bide would still have a majority of the electors who remain.

If, on the other hand, the electors for Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan remain as electors, but abstain from voting, then it likely would take 270 and throw it to to the House.

---

The law doesn't say certified. It says appointed. Is that the same thing? One could argue either way.

schmendeler said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Lorne Malvo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

if you won't let us disenfranchise 39,000,000 people in four states because we don't like the way that those states ran their elections, it's gonna be civil war!

---

Your libs should have thought about that before they unlawfully changed their laws before the election.

---

define unlawfully.

---

I'm just a dumb brown who can't figure out how to get an ID (according to Dems) but from what I've seen, by not following the guidelines to do so in the Constitution.

---

i don't think there are any guidelines in the constitution around getting an id to vote, no?

---

Cool. What does it say about needing an ID and background check to purchase a firearm?

captkirk said:

---

---

It's impossible to pin this on Trump any longer.

This started with the AG of the State of F'n TEXAS!!

We are still clutching to our guns and our Bibles, and we are not going to roll over in the face of fraud so obvious that almost half of the states of the republic are on board.

BusterAg said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats a standing issue I think Texas will have trouble getting around. From the PA brief:

Quote:

---

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]").

---

---

I agree. But when that point has been raised here in the past it was laughed off the stage. We'll see who is right if the court actually addresses it in the denial

---

I think SCOTUS will dispose of this case on standing. I would not be shocked if all Justices agree that Texas does not have standing.

---

At this point, I would be really surprised if SCOTUS didn't address the Article 1, section 2 issues. But, you never know.

---

They may address it as urged by Ohio, but I think the ultimate ruling is that Texas (and the other states) lack standing.

---

My bet is that this is the most likely outcome. Not sure which way they will rule.

However, this is probably what Texas is really looking for. You need to be seeking relief, so they are looking for an injunction to force the vote to the legislature. That is hugely unlikely. But, if SCOTUS says that legislatures CAN meet and vote on electors, that is a win for conservatives, in my opinion.

---

They need to think long and hard on the Main Street view before going with some overly technical dodge like "don't have standing". That won't fly at all. Most see the SCOTUS something like Catholics do the Pope or a Council -- some kind of real position taking and say on the subject. A decision to not have a decision does not cut it.

It will be seen as a bought of gesture, and might even be, with all the talk about Roberts and his past flaky invented decisions.

They have original jurisdiction since from a state, so just use that and take a look at some of the more compelling indicators. Even if they don't overturn the election, ordering changes immediately that change the Georgia runoffs would help, and it would encourage trust of 2022.