Posted on 12/07/2020 1:09:38 PM PST by kellymcneill
The Arizona Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an election challenge brought by the state’s Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward concerning mail-in ballots in Maricopa County.
A lower court judge dismissed her case Friday, but she took the challenge to the state’s highest court and has said a small sample of ballots and envelopes she was able to inspect showed some irregularities.
Arizona results show presumptive President-elect Joseph R. Biden topping President Trump by about 10,457 votes, or 0.3%.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
ariZoning out
Why only a small sample? How about all of the sworn first hand testimony?
If it … weighs the same … as a duck … Kamala Harris is made of wood!
This is a breakthrough, let’s see how it develops.
Let’s hope the judge is better than in other courts so far... Several judges have justified their rejections of Trump/Powell/Wood suits based disenfranchising the Biden votes.
But there is something mathematically wrong when judges like Timothy Batten in Georgia essentially claim that decertifying would be “disenfranchising the 2.5M voters who voted for Biden...”
If there was ANY voter fraud that tipped the scales for Biden, the judge is DISENFRANCHISING the several million voters who voted FOR Trump if he ignores the fraud!!
For example, suppose:
1. There were 2,500,000 “votes” for Biden
2. There were 2,499,999 votes for Trump.
3. Biden is declared the winner by the DemMedia
4. Later, it was proven that TWO (2) “dead” people voted for Biden, so they are properly tossed out.
Now, with a corrected election tally, Trump wins:
1. 2,499,999 votes for Trump.
2. 2,499,998 votes for Biden.
The point is that even if only a FEW fraudulent votes are found, those few votes have the effect of disenfranchising MILLIONS of legal voters in relatively close elections.
The judge is looking at this backwards: He is incorrectly discriminating on behalf of the 2.5 million Biden votes by choosing to not rectify the fraudulent votes within.
A friend of mine’s husband is on the AZ Supreme Court.
Well, if he’s a friend of yours and you post here, I would say he will probably side with Ward. There’s one, then.
5 Ducey judges, 2 Brewer judges.
We can predict the outcome.
Yeah, I’m not surprised by anything any longer but I am so disgusted with how things are going.
That particular PA lawsuit was not alleging fraud. It was stating (truthfully) that PA legislature overhauled its mail-in voting procedure. Before 2019, PA allowed absentee voting but only in four narrow circumstances.
Subsequently, PA loosened things up by allowing universal mail-in votes. About 2-3 million people took advantage of this.
The lawsuit does not allege that any of these votes were fraudulent. It alleges that the universal mail-in vote law violated PA Constitution, and therefore void. Consequently, all those votes should be disallowed.
Sure, understood. The point in my analysis still stands, whether it involved voiding as unconstitutional the mail-in ballots or whether it involved fraud.
In both cases, the legal votes & constitutionally-legitimate votes are disenfranchised if a judge fails to throw out those ballots.
It’s an interesting logical point.
But I am about 90% sure I came across a SCOTUS case that said that as far as an individual plaintiff is concerned, you can sue if your lawful vote is not counted. But you CANNOT sue if you assert an unlawful vote dilutes yours. In fact, if memory serves, I think I saw that case cited relatively recently by another appellate court.
But, if push comes to shove, Team DJT should ask SCOUTS to revisit this question of law.
It’s an interesting logical point.
But I am about 90% sure I came across a SCOTUS case that said that as far as an individual plaintiff is concerned, you can sue if your lawful vote is not counted. But you CANNOT sue if you assert an unlawful vote dilutes yours. In fact, if memory serves, I think I saw that case cited relatively recently by another appellate court.
But, if push comes to shove, Team DJT should ask SCOUTS to revisit this question of law.
Thanks for the interesting counterpoint.
I hadn’t heard that before, but it’s plausible SCOTUS addressed this before. Maybe that applies to an individual plaintiff, but not a class of plaintiffs - because surely, the case I cited below illustrates that a mere 2 vote swing can change an election and disenfranchise one side or the other.
What is the breakdown of the AS court?
Pa are popular elected for 10 year terms. Currently 5-2 dem to gop
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.