In looking at an election suit, Coalition For Good Governance et. al. v. Raffensperger, I count eight (8) lawyers defending six, 5 State Board of Election board members and the Secretary of State. I have observed court cases with the Secretary as a defendant and find that the state interests are always represented by multiple attorneys while aggrieved electors are usually represented by a lone voice.
Secretary Raffensperger inherited several cases from Brian Kemp. I don’t find that Kemp addressed any cases and find that both Kemp and Raffensperger always lawyer up and defend against an aggrieved elector(s). The only case I am aware that Raffensperger settled after an abbreviated defense is Democratic Party of GA, et. al. v. Raffensperger, et. al. in which Raffensperger agreed to change absentee ballot procedures without the benefit of the legislature’s blessing.
What Raffensperger and all 159 county election directors are missing, is when electors get to the point of filing suit their job performance has received a negative review. The people entrusted with transparent elections are employed to protect elections and they more than electors should fire the first shot at anything wrong. Double check me on the number of lawyers in Democtatic Party v. Raffensperger. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17088945/coalition-for-good-governance-v-raffensperger/
A concern of a voter expressed to the people whose job it is to address such should not be seen as an attack. The answer should not always be no. No voter should fear voting due to threat of arrest. In election law history, voters were exempt from arrest. While there has to be some rules. Laws, and standards to accomplish an election, poll managers should find a way to address concerns brought to them without escalating the concern into a confrontation. If the answer to concerns is always no, that gives rise to questions about the goals, intents, and purposes of those charged with carrying out elections.