Dan Epps

But you don't think this is different because of the way in which public perceptions matter?

But it's also like, it's not just about compliance with law, right?

He's sort of saying, you as a candidate have an interest in being treated fairly.

Isn't this kind of like the same idea where even if someone can't show they would have been admitted to the University of Texas, but for revaction, they still have an interest in participating in a process in which there is no racial discrimination that goes on?

I mean, do you think...

Friend of the show and co-blogger on the Divided Argument blog, Richard Ray, has written a little bit about this kind of realignment that's happening in standing, right, where, you know, at least, you know, by one...

when it looks like liberals are becoming standing hawks and conservatives are becoming more dovish.

So it sounds like maybe you don't buy that.

No, that's definitely true.

Oh, you do buy it.

You don't buy the criticism you just laid out a second ago, but maybe you do buy the realignment claim.

Do you buy that the realignment is driven by who's in power and who's bringing cases?

Or you're not going to be willing to go that far?

I'm not sure.

Okay, so broad majority holding.

I think the takeaway is anytime a candidate alleges that the counting of votes has been in some way illegal, even if it didn't require them or doesn't require them to spend money, even if it's not going to make a difference to the result, they have standing.

And that would go...

In two directions, right?

It would go like, after the fact, presumably, couldn't a candidate come in and say, yes, I won by 68%, but I would have won by more if you had not counted those votes.

ballots, right?