100
Lawyers descend on Mississippi as vote counting continues in razor-thin Senate race
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2026
100 points (99.0% liked)
politics
31775 readers
4477 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't really understand why lawyers are being used as election observers. Seems expensive and unnecessary.
Statutes dictate the procedures for how ballots are counted, so lawyers will always be involved. Statutes will often use vague or ambiguous language like "a sufficient amount of test ballots" or "A ballot shall be counted if the voter substantially complies with the requirements of this chapter"... So lawyers get to bicker about what "sufficient" means or "substantially" means legally.
I see. Sounds like hiring some lawyers to tighten up those statutes once to reduce recurring future costs might be a solid investment.
Because the GOP are trying to steal the election by using any means necessary to legally disenfranchise voters.
they may be volunteers.
Alternatively, whoever is paying them felt that lawyers could have some layer of increased trust?
Yeah, I suppose. It's not that I can't see a place for layers in the process. If there were reasons to suspect actual wrongdoing, the stakeholders sending in the lawyers to deal with might well be a real legal issue makes sense. To use them as observers to look for potential wrongdoing just seems like jumping straight to DEFCON 1 though. It just comes across a little like whipping out a gun before it's even certain there's gonna be a fight, you know?
If they volunteered to do it for free, that's another matter of course.
I think I can see the incentive to have lawyers present, since Mississippi specifically has no laws on the books to initiate a formal recount. Any attempt from either party could be dismissed by a judge - if without cause - due to there being no formal process to initiate a recount.
Also a lawyer versed in election law would probably be better at recognizing what is (and what isn’t) a problem. But one who isn’t might be only marginally better.
A gross lack of understanding of statistical processes.