lawfag here

comment on lake case

i posted many times what a crappy job her attorneys did in drafting and trying the case

THAT SAID IMO is was "clear and convincing" that there was in fact "misconduct" that "effected the outcome"

I think they proved that much and the judge took a very narrow view of the entire thing as if the evidence of misconduct should some how be blatant and obvious - which it was not

but that is NOT the legal standard and high care should be applied to protect the right to vote - he ignored that

high bar on appeal where judge finds facts against lake BUT "misconduct" is a legal question

i think she has a shot on appeal and again if i were judge there would be a new election