As you may have noticed, I have been distracted with life lately. There is an interesting artcle on the lake decision from the Supreme court which indicates I missed part of the story.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court found that the doctrine had been misapplied, and ruled,
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding to the trial court to determine whether the claim that Maricopa County failed to comply with A.R.S. § 16-550(A) fails to state a claim pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for reasons other than laches, or, whether Petitioner can prove her claim as alleged pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-672 and establish that ‘votes [were] affected ‘in sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the election’ based on a ‘competent mathematical basis to conclude that the outcome would plausibly have been different, not simply an untethered assertion of uncertainty.’”
This decision looks a LOT better than my interpretation and SHOULD be absolutely interesting. We shall see.
the Air Vent 
I wish lawyers would speak English:
So, The Maricopa County defense of not lawfully curing ballots (A.R.S. § 16-550(A)), was that there was no relief for Lake (Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), if Lake proved enough votes changed the election and could be declared the winner ( A.R.S. § 16-672)) ??
ARS 16-672
16-672. Contest of state election; grounds; venue
A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:
1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.
2. That the person whose right to the office is contested was not at the time of the election eligible to the office.
3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.
4. On account of illegal votes.
5. That by reason of erroneous count of votes the person declared elected or the initiative or referred measure, or proposal to amend the constitution, or other question or proposal submitted, which has been declared carried, did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for the office or a sufficient number of votes to carry the measure, amendment, question or proposal.
B. The contest may be brought in the superior court of the county in which the person contesting resides or in the superior court of Maricopa county.
C. In a contest of the election of a person declared elected to a state office or of an initiated or referred measure, constitutional amendment, or other question or proposal, which has been declared carried, the attorney general may intervene, and upon demand, the place of trial of the contest shall be changed to Maricopa county, if commenced in another county.
I believe lake gets rights under 4 now and possibly under 3 if she’s allowed to admit more evidence, like the stacks of ballots being placed into the ballot boxes with pictures from their phones.
“‘competent mathematical basis to conclude that the outcome would plausibly have been different, not simply an untethered assertion of uncertainty.’””
This reads like the big one to me though. Not sure but it looks like the courts have decided if it were plausibly different, that is sufficient to take action.