Dan Epps

Doesn't, I mean, there's no, just as a matter of standing, put aside remedies, stuff like that.

As a matter of standing, doesn't that have to be right?

If you have standing in a fair process and you could say the process wasn't fair, you should be able to challenge the process that happened yesterday and the process that happened tomorrow, right?

And it's not a defense to standing to just say you had a bad SAT score.

You got it.

That does seem problematic.

Well, so is the answer then that just a lot of what's driving this, and I'm not going to say this is bad necessarily, but a lot of what's driving this is sort of the stuff that comes up in the later part of the opinion, which is kind of pragmatic concerns, right?

Right.

That it's way better to decide these things up front and it's way better to not have courts making these tricky judgments about like, yeah, this candidate seems kind of like a loser or, you know, these voters who are like not as good about sending their ballots in on time are more likely to favor the other candidate.

And particularly in the playoffs.

Right.

Where it's, you know, really binary.

That's true.

That's true.

But I don't know.

But so the hypo that the chief gives us is this 100 meter dash, which is, you know, let's say they're supposed to do the, it's supposed to be 100 meter dash.

And instead, whoever is officiating this is, you know, lets them go for 105 meters.

And that's where they draw the line.

Yep.

It says, you know, whether a particular runner expects to finish strong or fall off the pace in the final five meters, all would be deprived of the chance to compete for the prize that the rules define.