Yes, we really do need to hear from the plantiff.
I do have a question for the Secretary about his testimony, though. You claim that
Article I Section 4 Clause 3 Sentence 1 Phrase 2 states that:
“Such special election shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Friday and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.”
While 72 hours is indeed mentioned, it is not in the context of the election lasting that long, but rather a way to avoid having to circuitously writing the following:
“Such special election shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Friday and shall conclude midnight Eastern Standard Time on the Monday following.”
I'm having a hard time buying that the text you quote isn't intended to state how long the election is to last. It seems pretty obvious to me that the text does intend to make clear
both the times for the election to start and end as well as the length of time it is to last. What isn't explicitly answered is what is to happen if the booth is opened late, which can happen. Which should be honored more, the times mentioned or the length of time declared? And, are we as justices and administrators supposed to deal with what the law says rather than why it was written the way it was? That is, isn't what
is stated more pertinent than what is
not stated, in this case the avoidance of "circuitous writing"?
