The True Story of Arizona Lake Election

Remember my first rule of law — Court decisions shall not make sense. It seems to be the only SHALL they actually follow. In other words …..the Arizona extrasupreme court did something. Well, we all look to someone for detail, and that seems to be my job these days.

IT IS ORDERED denying review of issues one through five and seven. The Court of Appeals aptly resolved these issues, most of which were the subject of evidentiary proceedings in the trial court, and Petitioner’s challenges on these grounds are insufficient to warrant the requested relief under Arizona or federal law.

633083823-orderrepetitionforreview-4731530-0-1Download

Well the only news sites covering this are using a giant pushbroom to hide the defeat. Maybe like a 30 ft pushbroom.

Just what are issues one through five and seven? And which court actually reviewed those? That’s why you guys read here though, you need detail.

ISSUE 1

Did the panel err in deciding that a century of precedent applies the clear-and convincing standard to all aspects of election contests, contrary to Parker v. City of Tucson, 233 Ariz. 422, 436 n.14 (App. 2013), in which Division Two recognized that the evidentiary standard remains an open question in cases— like this— where there is neither express statutory standard nor an allegation of fraud?

Literally made up law, now allowed as precedent in Arizona and the second biggest election integrity loss in my lifetime.

ISSUE 2

Given the EPM’s requirement that “the number of ballots inside the container shall be counted and noted on the retrieval form” “[w]hen the secure ballot container is opened,” EPM, Chapter 2, §I.7.h.1, did the panel err in holding that the EPM does not “impos[e] any express time requirement” for “when” to count ballots and that “an initial estimate” of ballots is all that the law requires?

Aptly — in a manner that is appropriate or suitable in the circumstances.

An actual definition

By intentionally failing to address this issue — at all — they have literally deleted 100% of chain of custody law. You can count it when you want to and apparently the “Appeals aptly resolved these issues”, using ZERO actual words. Yup, no words were required to “aptly” resolve these issues.

I don’t know how apt you can be by ignoring a problem but that is why we don’t have the high title of Your honor! Yup, “aptly addressed” – i can remember almost 0.002 percent of a word written about that. ….. or maybe not.

ISSUE 3

Did the panel err when it ignored the undisputed fact that 35,563 unaccounted for ballots were added to the total number of ballots at a third party processing facility

ISSUE4

Did the panel err when it ignored the fact that Maricopa did not perform L&A testing as required by EPM and A.R.S. §16-449?

Within the period of time before the election day prescribed by the secretary of state in the instructions and procedures manual adopted pursuant to section 16-452, the board of supervisors or other election officer in charge, or for an election involving state or federal candidates, the secretary of state, shall have the automatic tabulating equipment and programs tested to ascertain that the equipment and programs will correctly count the votes cast for all offices and on all measures.

AZ Rev Stat § 16-449 (2016)

Yup, also “aptly” addressed by being 100% ignored. Not one piece of evidence showed that ANY testing was done, not ONE piece of testimony refuted the claim. Not one actual witness was presented to say this statute was followed and nothing from the appellate court addressed this. The extrasupreme court decided that these “are insufficient to warrant the requested relief” so — out it goes without review.

ISSUE 5

Did the panel err when it ignored the evidence that Maricopa’s failure toperform L&A testing caused massive disruptions to voting on Election Daydisenfranchising thousands of Republican voters

Also aptly addressed by the appellate court — by not considering it.

ISSUE 7

Did the panel err in dismissing the Equal Protection and Due Process claims on the pleadings as “duplicative” of Count II, without considering the additional issues that equal-protection and due-process review add to Maricopa’s misconduct, such as the targeting of Republican voters and the “patent and fundamental unfairness” of targeted election disruptions?

Then there is this now TRASHED bit of the appeals court ruling:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating ¶¶ 26-30 of the Court of Appeals Opinion.

LAKE v. HOBBS, et al.
Opinion of the Court
10
an affidavit from one of the vendor’s employees who stated that the vendor permitted its employees to insert their own (and their family members’) ballots into batches of early ballot packets coming from the Maricopa County facility. The affiant estimated that she “personally saw about 50 ballots” inserted in this manner. But the superior court “d[id] not give the Affidavit much weight.” Instead, the court credited testimony by Maricopa County elections officials that the practice was not permitted and likely did
not happen, noting specifically that “County employees—who follow the EPM—have eyes on the ballot process” at the vendor’s facility. We defer to these credibility determinations. See Shooter, 235 Ariz. at 201, ¶ 4. Moreover, even taking the affidavit as true, 50 ballots (even if all were against Lake) is orders of magnitude short of having any plausible effect on the outcome. See Miller, 179 Ariz. at 180. The superior court did not err by denying Lake’s chain-of-custody claim.
III. Summary Dismissal of Lake’s Other Claims.

¶25 We review de novo the superior court’s ruling dismissing Lake’s other claims before trial. See Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355–56, ¶¶ 7–8 (2012). We assume the truth of the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations relating to those claims but are mindful that “mere conclusory statements are insufficient.” Id. at 356, ¶ 9; see also Hancock v. Bisnar, 212 Ariz. 344, 348, ¶¶ 16–17 (2006) (applying Ariz. R. Civ. P. 8 standards to election contest complaint); Griffin, 86 Ariz. at 170. We will affirm the dismissal if the challenger “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” Coleman, 230 Ariz. at 356, ¶ 8 (citation omitted).

A. Signature-Verification Claim.
¶26 The superior court construed Lake’s signature-verification claim as a challenge to Maricopa County’s existing election procedures, a type of claim that must be brought before an election occurs, not after. See, e.g., Sherman v. City of Tempe, 202 Ariz. 339, 342, ¶¶ 9–11 (2002) (noting that requiring such challenges be brought before the election avoids post- election requests “to overturn the will of the people, as expressed in the election” based on grounds that existed beforehand). Lake asserts that her
complaint did not challenge the validity of Maricopa County’s signature- verification procedures but rather alleged violations of those procedures during the 2022 election, and that the superior court therefore erred by dismissing this claim.LAKE v. HOBBS, et al.

Opinion of the Court
11
¶27 In Arizona, early ballots are returned in envelopes containing a ballot affidavit that the voter must sign. See A.R.S. § 16-547(A), (D). Before the early ballot is tabulated, the ballot-affidavit signature must be verified. See A.R.S. § 16-550(A). To do so, the county recorder must compare the signature on the ballot affidavit with the voter’s “registration record” to
verify that the voter made the signature on the ballot affidavit. A.R.S. § 16-
550(A).

¶28 To complete signature verification, the EPM (in effect since 2019) directs elections officials to consult the voter registration form and “additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voter’s registration record, such as signature rosters or early ballot/PEVL request forms.” EPM at 68. Likewise, the signature-verification process described in Maricopa County’s 2022 Elections Plan involves a comparison of the ballot-affidavit signature against “a historical reference signature that
was previously verified and determined to be a good signature for the voter,” drawn from documents including “voter registration forms, in- person roster signatures and early voting affidavits from previous elections.” Maricopa County’s process also contemplates “multi-level signature verification,” with a first-level reviewer comparing the ballot- affidavit signature to up to three signatures on file, and if the signature does not match those exemplars, further review by a manager, who compares
the signature against all of the signatures on file for the voter.

¶29 If the signature-verification process results in a determination that the signatures “correspond,” the ballot may be tabulated; if the signatures do not match, the voter must, if reasonably possible, be contacted, given an opportunity to cure the mismatch, and have their vote counted. See A.R.S. § 16-550(A); EPM at 68–69.

¶30 Although she now argues otherwise, Lake’s signature-verification claim alleged a procedural violation of the election process.
Lake’s complaint alleged that the Maricopa County Recorder “accepted a material number” of early ballot packets with an “affidavit signature that the Maricopa County Recorder or his designee determined did not match the signature in the putative voter’s ‘registration record.’” But this assertion was premised on first-level reviewers’ rejection rates, not on the ultimate determination after Maricopa County’s multi-level signature-verification process. Thus, at best, Lake’s signature-verification claim attacked Maricopa County’s process for verifying signatures that first-level reviewers questioned—a challenge to the County’s election procedures, not a claim that the overall procedures were violated. Accordingly, the superior court correctly concluded that Lake’s contest attacked the manner ofLAKE v. HOBBS, et al.

Basically, the only thing the supremes were willing to even look at was whether the signature verification laws were followed. Which they were blatantly NOT followed, but again, they passed the buck back to a different court. The problem is they were incredibly specific, only 16-550(A) matters and I’ve placed the text at the bottom of this post.

In the meantime, the court threw another ham-bone at Kari’s head with this one:

The record does not reflect that 35,563 unaccounted ballots were added to the total count. The motions for sanctions will be considered in due course.

They are going to consider sanctioning Lake’s attorneys for pointing out the blatant disregard for election law. It’s right there in black and white. So far, I’ve seen not one single cause for happiness in this blatantly fraudulent election. Sanctions are A TRULY ATYPICAL EVENT, a sanction for the discussion of the broken law in court…..

Gotta love the DOJ, huggable, thoughtful and friendly.

None of this is fraud, because now it is precedent. Kari Lake’s case has done more damage to election law than has ever been done in history and it is NOT her fault.

16-608. Delivery of ballots; electronic voting system

A. After the close of the polls and after compliance with section 16-602 the members of the election board shall prepare a report in duplicate of the number of voters who have voted, as indicated on the poll list, and place this report in the ballot box or metal container, in which the voted ballots have been placed, which thereupon shall be sealed with a numbered seal and delivered promptly by two members of the election board of different political parties to the central counting place or other receiving station designated by the board of supervisors or officer in charge of elections, which shall not be more than fifty miles from the polling place from which the ballots are delivered. The person in charge of receiving ballots shall give a numbered receipt acknowledging receipt of such ballots to the person in charge who delivers such ballots.

There is one bit of good news in all of this and despite it making ZERO sense to bring up now, it could result in fixing the FAKE procedure of signature voter identification. The supreme court decided that the decision of the previous two courts that laches does not apply to claim 6. Now laches is the same kind of thing that EVERY court has used such that they NOT consider any evidence. Fingers in ears …la la la la… We can’t hear evidence because YOU are too soon, you are too late etc..

So Lake’s original, and valid complaint about violation of 16-550(A) couldn’t be heard before because it was too late. Basically, the courts now demand proof of election law violation before the law is violated and it better be clear and convincing evidence AAAANNNDDD you better get it all together in under 1 month — without being allowed access to the information you are questioning. Seems reasonable.

Remember, Lake’s folks were allowed approximately 100 ballot envelopes for examination to provide clear and convincing proof of election fraud.

So what is 16-550A? It is the requirement that someone contact the voter and ask them if they actually voted.

So it really doesn’t matter if the signature is bogus. It doesn’t matter if every single ballot was fake. It only matters whether the county recorder made reasonable effort to contact a person at a phone number and that person says they voted.

That’s it. The voter doesn’t even need to see the signature of the envelope the counting center has on hand.

So this sucker is dead and Arizona election law has been fully masticated.

Here is the text of 16-550(A)

A. On receipt of the envelope containing the early ballot and the ballot affidavit, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record. If the signature is inconsistent with the elector’s signature on the elector’s registration record, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the voter, advise the voter of the inconsistent signature and allow the voter to correct or the county to confirm the inconsistent signature. The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall allow signatures to be corrected not later than the fifth business day after a primary, general or special election that includes a federal office or the third business day after any other election. If the signature is missing, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the elector, advise the elector of the missing signature and allow the elector to add the elector’s signature not later than 7:00 p.m. on election day. If satisfied that the signatures correspond, the recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall hold the envelope containing the early ballot and the completed affidavit unopened in accordance with the rules of the secretary of state.

All of this is now legal