I watched every minute of the trial and not once did the plaintiff lawyer implied intention wrong doing. What's the reason behind this?
What these lawyer did would be like proving a person stole a car, kidnapped a woman, beat her, raped her, put the murder weapon in the killer's hand, put them at the time and place, having the pic of the killer stabbing the woman, then having the defendant admit all of that to be true, but only to say "its really odd" the lady was murder in closing, and all that when the only thing the judge cares about is if murder was intentional or not.
What was the reason behind this legal tactic? Did they simply try to introduce evidence because everyone knew it would go to appeal?
Election law is designed to make sure that legal challenges do not occur and if they do, they have almost no chance of success. It is the myth of fair elections that must be preserved, not fair elections themselves. There is a higher standard of proof than in a murder case and less time allowed for presentation than in a shoplifting case. To meet the standard required, the Lake team would have needed hundreds of witnesses and thousands of exhibits. They would have needed extensive discovery and access to millions of documents. A comparable civil trial would have required a minimum of six months to prepare and one month to present. It is considered more important to have continuity in government than to insure the people's choice is actually seated.
The solution is not in the civil courts but in the election itself. Those who cheat know the process and know that if you can get past election day, you are home free. They also know that if caught in malfeasance there are no meaningful penalties. For years, one party has worked diligently at the lowest levels of government to take control of the election process. They have developed and nurtured a spoils system that would be the envy of Boss Tweed and his Tammany Hall Gang. The other party has always concentrated their resources including best candidates on the top jobs and even when they win, they lack the lower level infrastructure to make meaningful change.