Posted on 05/22/2023 3:01:33 PM PDT by CFW
Claiming that a non-binding resolution overrides state law, an Arizona Republican state senator on Monday declared that Arizona counties are barred from using machines to count ballots — an assertion that was quickly shot down by elections officials, the state’s attorney general and county leaders.
Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borrelli penned a letter to all 15 Arizona counties on Monday, telling them that they were barred from using any machines to administer future elections. He claimed that the legislature’s recent approval of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1037 was binding under a radical interpretation of a constitutional provision that would effectively allow state legislatures to do whatever they want with elections.
The core of the so-called “plenary powers” theory is that legislatures can change election rules and administration whenever they want and however they want, with no checks or balances by the judicial or executive branches.
(Excerpt) Read more at azmirror.com ...
This is from a left-supporting site, but it is the only place I could find that was reporting on the Arizona Senate leader’s statement and press release from earlier today.
This is where I originally saw the reporting:
“BREAKING
AZ Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borelli issues letter to every county election office notifying them no electronic voting machine can be used in ‘24 election
Katie Hobbs vetoed law, but Constitution gives plenary authority to state legislature so they’re overriding her”.
The link below includes the press release from the AZ GOP Senate majority leader.
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1660717421710155780
He CaNt Do ThAt He HaS tO fOlLoW tHe lAw! StUpId GOP FaScIsTs!
“...can change election rules and administration whenever they want and however they want, with no checks or balances...”
Who do they think they are, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court? The same court that usurped the power of the PA legislature and changed election laws just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, ruling that ballots could be submitted and counted 5 days AFTER election day (and with NO signature).
Very biased coverage.
“...can change election rules and administration whenever they want and however they want, with no checks or balances...”
Love that quote. Changing and implementing laws is pretty much the job description for state representatives. The “checks and balances” come in with the Courts reviewing those laws to see if they and the legislature’s actions are legal according to the Constitution.
“We do not like that” is not a legal nor Constitutional argument.
Fix the door after the cows come home.
Brilliant! Not.
Wake me when the shuttle lands.
Anyone following the 2022 Arizona election knows that the electronic voting machines “malfunctioned” on election day, disenfranchising the majority conservative voters on election day. Many had to return to work and could not seek a polling place that was open.
“Very biased coverage.”
___
Just as most is these days and all based upon feelings rather than facts.
Since hearing the rumors earlier this afternoon that the Arizona Senate had made such a statement, I had been looking for any type of reporting. All I could find was the twitter thread that mentioned it. The press release from Senate leader was not yet even on his website (that I could find). This was the only article to be found to even actually address the issue. Of course, the Democrats will sue, but the Court filings as to why paper ballots cannot be used should be interesting.
“ The core of the so-called “plenary powers” theory is that legislatures can change election rules and administration whenever they want and however they want, with no checks or balances by the judicial or executive branches.”
In other words, the literal interpretation of the constitution as written? Now we call plain English written on paper a theory.
“ The core of the so-called “plenary powers” theory is that legislatures can change election rules and administration whenever they want and however they want, with no checks or balances by the judicial or executive branches.”
This violates the plain English, black and white letter law of the constitution. This should be an immediate federal lawsuit going to the US Supreme Court immediately
Here is the simple facts as I read them. The US Constitution gives state legislatures the power to determine election methods and means.
The States then operate within a framework that they establish.
In Arizona that is Article 7 and the pertinent section is in Section Section 12. which states in its entirety:
There shall be enacted registration and other laws to secure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise.
Now in the past the stupid legislature granted some of those powers in an administrative manner to the Sec of State (fools that they were) but I think they undid that. The issue for me is that this simple section says that there shall be “registration and other laws...” and laws are defined elsewhere to have the three branches of the AZ government involved in their enactment, signing into law and other issues. If the state constitution said that the State Legislature shall enact rules or something other than “laws” then this power cited might be possible. But that is not what it says in plain language.
see my 16
“ The core of the so-called “plenary powers” theory is that legislatures can change election rules and administration whenever they want and however they want, with no checks or balances by the judicial or executive branches.”
In other words, the literal interpretation of the constitution as written? Now we call plain English written on paper a theory.
“ The core of the so-called “plenary powers” theory is that legislatures can change election rules and administration whenever they want and however they want, with no checks or balances by the judicial or executive branches.”
This violates the plain English, black and white letter law of the constitution. This should be an immediate federal lawsuit going to the US Supreme Court immediately
You quoted the linked site’s source’s statement and then made two of your own in separate posts in regards to that statement that seem to be conflicting (both within less than a minute). Your first post supported the Senate leader’s position, and the second did not. As to the second, what issue do you think needs to be brought immediately to the Supreme Court by the federal government? And why should the SCOTUS be the first step while skipping lower Courts?
Right! Didn’t the USSC just ignore that also. I seem to remember Justice Alito wanted to do something but didn’t. So the fix was in all the way to the Supreme court.
The Republican Senator should brush up on the law. However, first he should learn what “non-binding” means.
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.