Harris - Walz, page-2974

One opposes inclusion on the ballot for technical irregularities (like claiming you live in New York, when you may not or there are doubts), which the Court then decides on and you call this electoral interference?.

Technicalities may be distasteful but everyone uses them - remember the foreign citizen issue in 2017, where fifteen sitting politicians were ruled ineligible by the High Court of Australia (or resigned pre-emptively) after being referred to the Court?

Then we have one opposes any election result that he loses (a result reinforced when he loses multiple Court challenges plus irrelevantly, he was flogged in the popular vote), has a tanty and encourages his followers to riot and use force to overturn an election result (i.e. is Trumpy) and you go, all good, nothing to see here (lol).

P.S. Dems using legal avenues which are available to them, is not electoral interference unless of course they have stacked the Court.... oh wait.... that was ...T again.