Whether the lower courts failed to address the important question of law to prevent the violation of constitutional rights and the greatest miscarriage of justice

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry our legislative purpose. [Foster v. United States, 303 U.S. 118, 120 (1938)] Election Code § 15101(b) is perfectly worded by the legislature to protect against any manipulation. Election Code § 15101(b) has a prohibition term stating, “under no circumstances may a vote count be accessed or released before 8 pm on the day of the election”. The statute defines processing, and it does not state processing to include ' scanning. Processing and machine reading are two different functions. Respondents define machine reading to include scanning. Scan counting function was not available when this safe statute was constructed. The legislature crafted the law and design safe construction of the words “under no circumstances” which is even more protective today and serves in best public interest. The lower court’s opinion . thus raises an imperative question of law that has not been, ii but should be, settled by this Court. For this reason, courts have a solemn duty to “preserv[e] the integrity of the election process.” (Fair v. Hernandez (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 868,881.) The questions presented are: 1. Whether the lower courts failed to address the ; important question of law to prevent the violation of constitutional rights and the greatest miscarriage of justice. 2. Whether the lower courts erred in its analysis of the law or in its application, and interpretation of the law. | 3. Whether the lower courts can explicitly rewrite and inject matters into the statute which are not in the legislature’s language. 4. Whether the Appeal Court failed to address the question of severe bias, prejudice, and the violation of constitutional rights, raised in the appeal to prevent the greatest miscarriage of justice.