Link us to a source indicating the evidence.
The Arizona "Audit"
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
While he conjures up some bull1shit2 ...
RULING
Arizona law requires election authorities to validate electronic vote counts by manually
recounting random batches of ballots. For this process, called the “hand count audit,” election
officials enlist representatives of Arizona’s political parties to sample and count the ballots.
Following the 2020 general election, Republican, Democratic and Libertarian Party appointees
hand-counted 2917 ballots cast on voting machines at polling places in Maricopa County, and
5000 additional early (mail-in) ballots. The hand counts verified that the machines had counted the votes flawlessly. Maricopa County, Arizona General Election - November 3, 2020 Hand Count/Audit Report (“Audit Report”), available at https://azsos.gov/election/2020-generalelection-hand-count-results (last visited December 9, 2020).
In this lawsuit, the plaintiff Arizona Republican Party asked for a court order directing the
defendant Maricopa County officials to redo the hand count audit using different batches of ballots.
The plaintiff baldly asserted that this relief was necessary to maintain “confidence in the integrity of our elections,” without alleging any facts to show that the machines might have miscounted the votes. The plaintiff could not explain why the suit had not been filed before the election, or what purpose another audit would serve.
This order explains why the Arizona Republican Party’s case was meritless, and the
dismissal order filed November 19, 2020 was required, under applicable Arizona law. What
remains is intervenor Arizona Secretary of State's application for an award of attorneys' fees. That application will require the Court to decide whether the Republican Party and its attorneys brought the case in bad faith to delay certification of the election or to cast false shadows on the election’s legitimacy. See Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-349(A) (court “shall” assess fees and costs against a party or attorney when the party’s claim is brought “without substantial justification” or “solely or primarily for delay”).
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-.../45/2020/11/CV2020014553-elections-m.e.-1.pdf
RULING
Arizona law requires election authorities to validate electronic vote counts by manually
recounting random batches of ballots. For this process, called the “hand count audit,” election
officials enlist representatives of Arizona’s political parties to sample and count the ballots.
Following the 2020 general election, Republican, Democratic and Libertarian Party appointees
hand-counted 2917 ballots cast on voting machines at polling places in Maricopa County, and
5000 additional early (mail-in) ballots. The hand counts verified that the machines had counted the votes flawlessly. Maricopa County, Arizona General Election - November 3, 2020 Hand Count/Audit Report (“Audit Report”), available at https://azsos.gov/election/2020-generalelection-hand-count-results (last visited December 9, 2020).
In this lawsuit, the plaintiff Arizona Republican Party asked for a court order directing the
defendant Maricopa County officials to redo the hand count audit using different batches of ballots.
The plaintiff baldly asserted that this relief was necessary to maintain “confidence in the integrity of our elections,” without alleging any facts to show that the machines might have miscounted the votes. The plaintiff could not explain why the suit had not been filed before the election, or what purpose another audit would serve.
This order explains why the Arizona Republican Party’s case was meritless, and the
dismissal order filed November 19, 2020 was required, under applicable Arizona law. What
remains is intervenor Arizona Secretary of State's application for an award of attorneys' fees. That application will require the Court to decide whether the Republican Party and its attorneys brought the case in bad faith to delay certification of the election or to cast false shadows on the election’s legitimacy. See Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-349(A) (court “shall” assess fees and costs against a party or attorney when the party’s claim is brought “without substantial justification” or “solely or primarily for delay”).
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-.../45/2020/11/CV2020014553-elections-m.e.-1.pdf
Arizona GOP Must Pay $18,000 In Legal Fees For Failed Election Lawsuit
Alison Durkee
Forbes Staff
Business
Alison Durkee
Forbes Staff
Business
- ordered the Arizona GOP and other plaintiffs to pay $18,237.59 in legal fees to Hobbs as the secretary of state had requested, finding the amount “reasonable and appropriate.”
The court had already dismissed the Republican lawsuit—which requested a hand count of certain ballots in Maricopa County for a second time, believing the first time was not done in proper accordance with state rules—ruling elections officials had “followed the Elections Procedures Manual to the letter” and not done anything wrong.
In the legal fees ruling, Hannah wrote the Republicans’ arguments for bringing the litigation “were flimsy excuses for a lawsuit,” and noted the GOP plaintiffs acknowledged in court filings that their lawsuit was motivated by “public mistrust” in the election results, rather than believing the second audit was necessary for a “fair election.”
“The plaintiff is effectively admitting that the suit was brought primarily for an improper purpose” and they “filed this lawsuit for political reasons,” Hannah wrote, adding, “‘Public mistrust’ is a political issue, not a legal or factual basis for litigation.”
The Arizona GOP had argued in its injunction request that not performing the audit would “create a cloud over the legitimacy of this election and its results”—an argument that Hannah wrote “[undercut] the election’s legitimacy” and “is a threat to the rule of law posing as an expression of concern.”
The Arizona Republican Party has not yet responded to a request for comment.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“Unfortunately, the damage inflicted upon our democracy by frivolous lawsuits and conspiracy theories can't be measured in dollars,” Hobbs said in a statement to Forbes about the ruling. “However, today’s order is good news for taxpayers, and sends an important message to those willing to abuse the legal process for political purposes.”
KEY BACKGROUND
The Arizona lawsuit was one of more than 60 failed court cases brought by former President Donald Trump and his allies after the election seeking to overturn or sow distrust in the presidential results, despite a lack of credible evidence showing any wrongdoing or voter fraud. Arizona GOP chairwoman Kelli Ward was involved in a number of other lawsuits in addition to the hand count request, including attorney Sidney Powell’s lawsuit in the state and another challenge that were both thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court. The legal fees could portend even more consequences Republican litigants will soon face for their unsuccessful legal battles, as complaints and investigations against them mount. Several counties in Georgia are asking the Trump campaign and state GOP for nearly $17,000 in legal fees, Powell and other attorneys are facing an ethics complaint in Arizona and potential sanctions and disbarment in Michigan and far-right attorney Lin Wood is being investigated by the State Bar of Georgia, among other potential punishments.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR
Arizona’s Republican lawmakers are now using the distrust they sowed in the election results to push for more restrictive voting rules in the state—part of a broader nationwide trend—introducing nearly two dozen measures that include cuts to early and mail-in voting.
TANGENT
The Arizona GOP is also now facing an election-related lawsuit from within their own ranks, as several Republicans filed suit last week against Ward and the party for refusing to audit their own leadership elections.
And finally ...
U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear last challenge to Arizona election
By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services May 3, 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out what is likely the last legal challenge remaining about the choice of Arizona voters of Joe Biden for president.
Without comment the justices refused to consider a request by Pinal County resident Staci Burk that she should be allowed to pursue her claims of evidence of election fraud. She wanted access to the ballots to prove that some were invalid.
The justices, however, never actually got to look at those claims. In fact, that wasn’t even part of her petition to the high court.
What Burk wanted — and what the justices refused to grant her — is a hearing over the question of whether she was an “elector” under Arizona law who had standing to bring such a claim in the first place. It was that lack of standing that allowed state courts, right up through the Arizona Supreme Court, to ignore her claims.
In her underlying claims, Burk alleged widespread fraud and improper tallying by voting machines. She also claims that someone had flown a batch of ballots into Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport, some of which Burk said were taken to the Maricopa County ballot tabulation center.
Burk never got a hearing on her claims after her case was tossed last year by Pinal County Superior Court Judge Kevin White who concluded she had no legal right to sue because she did not fit the legal definition of “qualified elector.” He said that was because she was not registered to vote in the 2020 race.
She charged that her registration had been illegally canceled and sought a hearing. But White also found that Burk, who represented herself, waited too long to file suit.
The state’s high court reached the same conclusion.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel writing for himself and three other justices who reviewed the case, acknowledged that Burk contends that her registration was improperly canceled.
The justices did not rule on that nor even dispute her argument. But Brutinel said it doesn’t matter.
“She admits that she was well aware before the election that she would not be able to vote in the general election,” the chief justice wrote. “There is nothing before the court to indicate that (Burk) timely contacted the appropriate authorities to correct any problems with her voter registration.”
There was no immediate comment from Burk.
https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/202...s-to-hear-last-challenge-to-arizona-election/
U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear last challenge to Arizona election
By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services May 3, 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out what is likely the last legal challenge remaining about the choice of Arizona voters of Joe Biden for president.
Without comment the justices refused to consider a request by Pinal County resident Staci Burk that she should be allowed to pursue her claims of evidence of election fraud. She wanted access to the ballots to prove that some were invalid.
The justices, however, never actually got to look at those claims. In fact, that wasn’t even part of her petition to the high court.
What Burk wanted — and what the justices refused to grant her — is a hearing over the question of whether she was an “elector” under Arizona law who had standing to bring such a claim in the first place. It was that lack of standing that allowed state courts, right up through the Arizona Supreme Court, to ignore her claims.
In her underlying claims, Burk alleged widespread fraud and improper tallying by voting machines. She also claims that someone had flown a batch of ballots into Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport, some of which Burk said were taken to the Maricopa County ballot tabulation center.
Burk never got a hearing on her claims after her case was tossed last year by Pinal County Superior Court Judge Kevin White who concluded she had no legal right to sue because she did not fit the legal definition of “qualified elector.” He said that was because she was not registered to vote in the 2020 race.
She charged that her registration had been illegally canceled and sought a hearing. But White also found that Burk, who represented herself, waited too long to file suit.
The state’s high court reached the same conclusion.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel writing for himself and three other justices who reviewed the case, acknowledged that Burk contends that her registration was improperly canceled.
The justices did not rule on that nor even dispute her argument. But Brutinel said it doesn’t matter.
“She admits that she was well aware before the election that she would not be able to vote in the general election,” the chief justice wrote. “There is nothing before the court to indicate that (Burk) timely contacted the appropriate authorities to correct any problems with her voter registration.”
There was no immediate comment from Burk.
https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/202...s-to-hear-last-challenge-to-arizona-election/
Make them pay for it when they bring bullshit to the courts and waste the time of the legal system.
wrbtrader
Everyone on the left and right basically agrees that conservatives enjoy being lied to. qtards, pizzatards, birthertards, birchertards, start the steal tards all prove it. It is always tard this and tard that. Conservatives are attracted to dishonestly like flies are attracted to shit. They don't even care if today's lie contradicts yesterday's lie, they only care about the orgasm they get being lied to.
My eyes saw what they saw on election night and this is what they saw
Delusion is common among Trumptards
Actually that is exactly why they were dismissed B1S2, the information is public so you can look it up for yourself.
There were dozens of cases, and most were dismissed because of a combination of procedural mistakes and lack of evidence. Only a couple were dismissed because of procedural issues only, and a couple were dismissed because of lack of evidence only.
It is incorrect to say the courts haven't seen the evidence. Reality is the judges didn't agree there was a case to begin with.
Your argument that the Trump voters should be appeased is subjective and as such open for discussion. My question here is: is there ANYTHING that can change the mind of those who believe the elections were rigged? Again it's a bit - a lot actually - like the flat earthers: if people really want to believe something rather than look for truth they will simply ignore, deny or twist facts that show them wrong. You don't solve that by providing them with more facts.