What Happens In Vegas ...

... may not stay in Vegas. That's the title of an interesting and somewhat hopeful article by liberal law prof Jonathan Turley:

What Happens In Vegas May Not Stay In Vegas: Why The Nevada Challenge Could Be Important To The Presidential Election

Turley is one of those quaint old fashioned liberals who seems not to have internalized that the end justifies the means. He even testified on behalf of President Trump at the fake impeachment.

Anyway. You'll remember that the last time we mentioned Nevada the local GOP was referring information to DoJ, to the effect that many thousands of non-residents had voted. In his relatively brief article Turley explains why this issue could be important and could, in a sense, lead to the issue being exported to states like Michigan and Pennsylvania:

The allegations over ineligible voting were raised before Election Day. Many states like Nevada are relying on notoriously outdated voter lists and applying fairly lax standards for confirming the identity of voters for mail-in ballots. ...  Absent a system of authentication of residency and identification, it would be a system based on the honor system – an approach that no casino would allow even at the nickel slots section.

As courts deal with a flurry of lawsuits in various states, I have been focusing on the allegations in Nevada of thousands of ineligible or even deceased voters. That is the type of systemic failure that could cloud results in not just the Silver State but other states.  Nevada was one of the states that I identified before the election as one of three states that I was watching the most closely for election challenges. However, the problems raised in Nevada could raise concerns with shared elements to various states from Michigan to Pennsylvania. The reliance on questionable voter lists and the lack of authentication systems were raised months ago. The legal problem is not simply that such systems may allow for large numbers of ineligible votes but that they would not allow sufficient review of ballots to resolve such questions.

In other words, the problem isn't simply with a handful of ballots or votes--it's a systemic problem.

 

...  My concern is that it is not clear how a court could review these ballots in Clark County if it agrees that there appears to be systemic problems.  If the court believes that thousands voted illegally, that lack of a record could prove the undoing of the state officials. At some point, the burden can shift and courts demand proof that a problem was not systemic. If they cannot, the question will be raised whether the same vulnerability existed in other states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Georgia. A court could be presented with a decision of when the unknowable becomes the unacceptable.  If the court believes that thousands of unlawful votes were cases and the ultimate number impossible to confirm, the only certain way to address a systemic failure would be a special election – a prospect that few judges would relish and even fewer would seriously consider.

In other words, a redo. That's what we've come to. The US the laughingstock of the world. La Venezuela del Norte. I say, Bite the bullet. Let's have a redo in the disputed states.