I agree with your agreement regarding the "standing to sue" rationale for dismissal. Indeed, the execrable Texas anti-abortion law is designed to exploit this "standing to sue" legal principle. However, I do not think the Secretary of State's office has done anything "secretly." And I think you haven't thought through the consequences of making all ballots available to the scrutiny of anyone in the public who wants to see them. First of all, these are, after all, actually secret ballots. That is the basis of our election system. So, are you planning on having the names of the individuals casting these ballots become a matter of public record as well? And, even assuming their anonymity, how will you maintain the security of these ballots if the actual ballots are put into the hands of anyone eager to find (or plant!) evidence of fraud? You can't just hand them over like a library book and expect them back in a few weeks. You would have to have actual moment-to-moment oversight of any member of the general public who wants to spend time with these ballots (you would also need to make sure they brought in no writing instruments or other means to potentially revise the ballots). I also think you are incredibly naive to think that any amount of "transparency" in this context would make any difference to those so hungry for proof that Trump actually won, they made up and believed absurd stories about various ballots and election workers in the days after the election--many of which were conclusively and transparently refuted with absolutely ZERO effect on the faith of those who bought these lies in the first place. Finally, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If, in fact, as everyone but Trump nuts have said, the election system, as supervised by county and state officials works, then I don't think we should go trying to fix the unbroken system with "more public oversight." What would that look like? Why would that be more secure? If the current system is essentially free of any significant fraud, why would we change it to another system that we don't know would have the same enviable record, at least regarding fraud? There is a point when you tell children they have seen how the chocolate is made long enough because you know that their only real motivation for being there is not to better understand or have faith in the production process, but to try to steal the chocolate itself.

David @ 1:

Thanks for the comment. Some responses...

I do not think the Secretary of State's office has done anything "secretly."

Actually, the SoS has done a LOT of stuff in secret, including reviewing the "counterfeit" ballots alleged in the suit. Why would they look at them outside of the public eye, further opening themselves up to claims that they subsequently replaced or somehow changed the disputed ballots in question? I only hope the GA SoS office was smart enough to at least video tape every step of their "inspection", even though that too can be easily faked. (Eg., correct the ballots in question, seal them, and THEN start rolling the video tape for the "inspection".) This stuff should never be done in secret for exactly these reasons.

Also, for the record, GA's statewide hand-count audit was also done secretly, in that the public wasn't allowed to follow along with any of the tabulation (batch counts, etc., as they went) as is customary in the legitimate post-election audits and recounts.

And I think you haven't thought through the consequences of making all ballots available to the scrutiny of anyone in the public who wants to see them. First of all, these are, after all, actually secret ballots. That is the basis of our election system. So, are you planning on having the names of the individuals casting these ballots become a matter of public record as well?

Of course not. That is why ballots are separated from the names of those who cast them (by law) and cannot, at least in theory, be matched up with who cast them. In most states, ballots are public records. For example, here in CA, any voter ("elector") who wishes a "recount" may have one at any precinct or precincts they like, presuming they pay for the cost of the county staff needed to review those ballots with the elector.

Elections are public. Ballots are public. It is the core of our democracy. They should never be handled in secret. Ever.

And, even assuming their anonymity, how will you maintain the security of these ballots if the actual ballots are put into the hands of anyone eager to find (or plant!) evidence of fraud? You can't just hand them over like a library book and expect them back in a few weeks.

Correct. They are always in the custody of election officials, as the public is allowed to view, if not touch them. It's done all the time in states who don't have terrible election administration, as Georgia does.

You would have to have actual moment-to-moment oversight of any member of the general public who wants to spend time with these ballots (you would also need to make sure they brought in no writing instruments or other means to potentially revise the ballots).

Also correct. That's how it's regularly done elsewhere. It is not difficult.

I also think you are incredibly naive to think that any amount of "transparency" in this context would make any difference to those so hungry for proof that Trump actually won, they made up and believed absurd stories about various ballots and election workers in the days after the election--many of which were conclusively and transparently refuted with absolutely ZERO effect on the faith of those who bought these lies in the first place.

I assure you, after covering elections for nearly 20 years, I am not naive about any of this. But, beyond that, here I partially agree and partially disagree with you. You're correct that there is likely no amount of transparency that would satisfy the most dishonest, partisan, brain-poisoned cretins. But transparency does take away the vast majority of their complaints, making it much harder for them to mount the fake cases they have made. If the world (not just the plaintiffs in this case) was allowed, for example, to see the actually opening of those ballot boxes they claimed had counterfeits, and saw that none of their claims were true, they'd have a very hard time making their case.

This is how real post-election audits are done. Here's a recent example this year from Windham, NH.

• Next 'Big Lie' Audit to be in NH (Will be NOTHING Like the AZ Clown Show): 'BradCast' 5/7/2021
• Maricopa County, AZ's 'Sham' Audit v. Windham, NH's Very Real One: 'BradCast' 5/18/2021
• Mystery Solved!: Professional Public Audit in NH Uncovers Why Hundreds of Votes Were Mistallied: 'BradCast' 6/8/2021

Finally, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If, in fact, as everyone but Trump nuts have said, the election system, as supervised by county and state officials works, then I don't think we should go trying to fix the unbroken system with "more public oversight."

That is not what "everyone" said. Not by a long shot. A lot of very credible election experts have pointed to many problems in the 2020 election. No more than in previous elections, and nothing that suggests any results would be changed. But because you are not aware of the many problems detailed by experts does not mean they do not exist.

What would that look like? Why would that be more secure? If the current system is essentially free of any significant fraud, why would we change it to another system that we don't know would have the same enviable record, at least regarding fraud?

With all due respect, you are unfamiliar with the details of election integrity issues. There is a very serious, long standing lawsuit in Georgia, for example (filed long before the 2020 election) regarding their new, unverifiable Dominion touchscreen voting systems. They were implemented in 2020 after the previous Diebold touchscreen systems they had used for 20 years were found by a federal judge to be unverifiable, unsecure and, thus, unconstitutional. The federal judge banned them for use in 2020. That same judge, in the same case, also expressed very serious concerns about "serious security vulnerabilities" in the new systems, suggesting they had many of the same probs as the old ones. But she allowed them for use anyway in 2020, given there was no time to change systems before the election.

That suit continues and includes evidence from an expert allowed to review GA's systems that was so troubling, the Judge actually sealed the experts report and won't even allow either the plaintiff or the defendant (the GA SoS) to see it. It has been sealed as "attorneys eyes only" right now. Even Dominion hasn't seen the report, documents very serious vulnerabilities. (We know this, because the expert filed an affidavit [PDF] about his findings. That led to a whole bunch of the nation's top voting systems experts begging the CA SoS to review those findings in advance of the CA Recall election.)

There is a point when you tell children they have seen how the chocolate is made long enough because you know that their only real motivation for being there is not to better understand or have faith in the production process, but to try to steal the chocolate itself.

While the MAGA plaintiff's may be children, public elections are not chocolate. And in 2024, when the MAGA election officials are in charge after the real ones have been removed by the wingnuts, and when they declare that Trump won and the Democrat lost, you may be wishing for the transparency you are laughing away right now, simply because your candidate (and mine) won and Trump lost.