...A vote so cooked through automated processing that it cannot be audited is a vote that cannot be used to govern a nation.
This hinge point isn’t about “voting rights.” It’s about something bigger than defined rights under law. It’s about the foundational expectations of the compact between man and the state. That’s why it isn’t for the courts to decide when the breach has occurred. This has to go to the legislatures: the place public decisions are deliberated before law is written down.
All that said, here are the basic elements of the problem. These elements are why we have something practical we can do about it, with the constitution-ordered end of the current presidential term approaching.
First, we know the vote was manipulated. We have the means to know it, and we have evidence. The two main methods were automated vote manipulation and mail-in ballot-tampering. Our task is to evaluate the evidence and not sweep it aside.
Second, we know that a number of people – persons identified in a lawsuit, and persons on record in the media, Congress, and other public forums – were aware in advance that the vote could be manipulated in the systems that were used.
Third, we know that the vendors of the systems in question have connections to foreign countries, and we have reason to be concerned that those foreign countries may have hoped to affect our elections.
Fourth, numbers one through three mean that one of the most important approaches to this problem is as a national security problem.
Fifth, we know President Trump recognized foreign manipulation of our voting process as a grave potential national security problem as early as September 2018, when he issued E.O. 13848.
Sixth, we know the U.S. government has the means to gather intelligence and law enforcement evidence on the human and information-media activities incident to an effort to manipulate our voting processes.
Therefore, we have reached the stage at which it’s time to pose the question to President Trump and his agencies: “So, what did you find out?”
Congress is the place to ask that question. The people have reason to expect an answer....
There is far more than this in Dyer's post, including VERY disturbing mention that neither the electronic NOR the hand-marked ballots are "auditable" in many instances.
That's how she got to the Congressional solution.