Andrew Lynn Brasher

“ The plaintiffs here are not in the same position as an inmate about to be executed or a patient removed from life support. The “irreparable” harm threatened here is that voting machines will be “wiped,” erasing the data they contain and preventing the plaintiffs from conducting the forensic inspection they request. But the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the alleged harm is imminent—that the defendants would have wiped all these machines county-by-county, destroying all the data they contain, unless the district court had granted broader relief on Sunday night. ”

“ A few days later, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as to the district court’s Sunday night order. As a result, the district court canceled the hearing on the broader relief the plaintiffs had requested. The defendants filed a conditional cross-appeal. Later, the plaintiffs also requested permission to appeal in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) .
II. DISCUSSION
In our judicial system, the district court is the central forum for testing, advancing, proving, or disproving a party’s allegations. It is where trials take place and the parties present their evidence. ”

“ This solution would allow the plaintiffs to quickly collect the data they sought without impeding the runoff elections. The district judge agreed with the plaintiffs, and said that he would “order and temporarily restrain the Defendants... from altering or destroying or erasing [,] or allowing the alteration, destruction, or erasing of any of the computer information on any of the [voting] machines” in Cobb, Gwinnett, and Cherokee Counties.
True to his word, the district judge issued a written temporary restraining order on Sunday night that gave the plaintiffs what they said they wanted. ”