Whilst that may be true in theory or morality, how can you conflate civil law to constitutional law? As much as I'd love for that to be the case, the reason why you can't equate theft of property to election fraud is because of the bindings of the laws and actions to which both cases belong.

The process of reconciliation in a civil theft case is the return of the property OR alternatively (and most likely) insurance compensation for the loss of property. Why? Because that's the nuance that was decided upon as part of the process, part of the law.

Constitutional law isn't exactly the same. You have more variables. You have different confines of those laws, different reconciliation of the "crime".

Then you have a situation where the military could (but probably won't) get involved and their laws and standards of proof.

You have so many other things to consider in contemplation of Constitutional law. Not that law means a whole lot to those in power, it seems. You have that to consider too. Constitutional law is only as strong as those willing to enforce it and I don't know about you, but the military isn't very "strong" on anything. Ultimately they're the ones who would have to enforce it.

Not saying that it wouldn't happen, but you wanted people to reconcile and thus, reconcile I shall.