Fixing Election Law

The quote is over 274,000 signatures were approved in under 3 seconds and then 11 did most of them. So the only thing Lake has been allowed to argue in court is that Maricopa has not followed it’s own signature verification processes. Further, Lake must show that the failure to follow procedure, produced significant numbers to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the election was changed in Hobbs favor.

Lake has narrowed her claim to that complained of in Reyes, and she must demonstrate at trial pursuant to her concessions that Maricopa County’s higher level signature reviewers conducted no signature verification or curing and in so doing had systematically failed to materially comply with the law. This is, of course, in addition to the requirement that she prove that this alleged complete failure to conduct signature verification resulted in a change in the outcome of the gubernatorial election  proven by “competent mathematical basis.” All of this must be done by clear and convincing evidence.  Lake , 525 P.3d at 668, ¶ 10.

These are the judges pretrial words, not only must Lake prove that signature verification was circumvented sufficiently to question the election but that NO SIGNATURE VERIFICATION OR CURING was done- and systematically they need to show that the county failed to comply with the law. That is entirely different than sufficient circumvention of law to change an election. The judge also held her to arguing only the higher level reviewers created this problem. The high level reviewers only see rejected ballots from the first level. This statement significantly reduces the number of ballots in question statistically limiting Lake’s ability to prove an outcome was changed. The addition of ‘curing’ in the statement, is even worse and is an obfuscation of the understanding that the ballots are secret and ANY curing was completed behind the scenes, away from observers, on unknowable numbers of ballots. How do you prove that NO curing was done on a specific accepted signature? Again, you have no access to the data showing what was done.

Well, the Lake attorney’s are going with the time to review ballots based on the fact that hundreds of thousands of signatures were reviewed so quickly that they were simply accepted. This seems very clearly the case at this point based on the following. One reviewer accepted just under 30,000 signatures without any rejections and others accepted over 274,000 on an under 3 second review. The review screens weren’t even being scrolled down to show the reference signature to the reviewer, meaning they weren’t checked at all.

Is anyone surprised by that?

Of the 170,000 signatures reviewed above, 99.97% were approved meaning there were approximately 51 signatures rejected for a city sized block of people. Observers and counters gave affidavits saying they had seen percentages close to 30% rejection in some areas, meaning that in a sane court the lawyers have proven the first requirement that the county systematically and materially failed to comply with signature verification.

Now, according to Judge Thompson, they must prove that these signatures changed the outcome of the election. Again, Lake can’t see the ballots associated with the signatures and has been given no actual access to the signatures. How would she show that these signatures are actually bad? Perhaps it was a city sized block of really well done signatures. Per the supreme court, Lake may use statistics to show the change in the election result but how can she ‘prove’ such a thing without access to the signatures themselves?

It looks to me like judge has set up a nice vacation for himself after he’s done creating precedent to prevent any legal challenges to future elections, while thrashing about like an angry toddler all over Arizona election law.

22 thoughts on “Fixing Election Law

  1. O/T again but –

    If anyone is feeling mathematically inclined –

    This is based on information from that Simplicius 76 link in my “patriotic stuff” post above.

    “”Dagger” is visible to radar for only about 5 seconds.

    I derive this result below using the technical information provided by
    Simplicius, and then solving the resulting first-order differential
    equation. This is substantially shorter than Simplicius’s own
    qualitative estimate “20-30 seconds at most”.

    Simplicius shows that hypersonic vehicles cannot survive for long near
    sea level without special cladding, which may or may not have been
    invented, but anyway is not used on Dagger. Rather, they slow from
    hypersonic to supersonic speeds from atmospheric friction.

    Dagger slows from v_init (~ Mach 10) to v_final (~ Mach 2-4) as it
    descends from its peak (i.e., initial height, h_init ~ 50 km) to h=0.

    For those not interested in differential equations, the simple
    physical argument is that about 2/3 of the atmosphere is within one
    scale height (H = 8 km). Hence, if the atmosphere is going to provide
    sufficient drag to bring Dagger below hypersonic (h_hyper = Mach 5),
    but not so much as to make it subsonic by the time it reaches the
    ground, it must do so within about 1 scale height.

    When the velocity falls below hypersonic (Mach 5), Dagger loses its
    “plasma cocoon”, and so becomes visible to radar. Because this occurs
    within about 8 km, and the average speed during this final descent is
    conservatively at least Mach 3.5, the time of radar visibility is C

    where I have assumed that exp(-h_init/H) is extremely small.

    One easily then finds

    K = ln(v_init/v_final)/H

    C = ln(v_init)

    and hence

    ln(v/v_init) = (ln(v_final/v_init)*exp(-h/H)

    Thus, solving for h_hyper (i.e., when v=v_hyper = Mach 5)

    h_hyper = H*ln[ln(v_init/v_final)/ln(v_init/v_hyper)]

    This formula gives characteristic times of a few seconds, during
    which gravity would change the speed by (few second)*10 m/s^2, i.e.,
    a few 10s of m/s, which is small compared to the speed of sound
    and hence can be ignored at first order.
    Posted by: Cindy Martin | May 18 2023 18:33 utc | 39″

    another ian says:
    19 May 2023 at 10:17 am

    There is some feedback on this further down that thread but you might consider wearing Wellingtons as there is a lot of wading

  2. I have watched quite a bit of last week’s court case.
    I can’t believe the head of the Maricopa County’s election division name is Ray Venezuela. How appropriate! Not the Ray part of his name but the surname is very fitting. Venezuela being the birth place of massive computer voter fraud.
    I quite liked the Judge and how he dealt with the objections by suggesting a more appropriate way of asking the same questions being objected about.
    The judge has been in the court room for three days dealing with both sides.
    It must have been a thing of great credulity to watch the other Ray , keep a straight face, whilst pretending that taking three seconds to verify signatures was even possible let alone an exemplary example of best practice.

    Hahaha. What a dogs breakfast it all is.

    I kept expecting a bevy of clowns to jump out of boxes and start dancing around.

    Well Jeff, you might be right the verdict might be non sensible.

    Not that Ray

    1. Ray,
      As you know, I struggle a bit with judges in general. They make a spectacle of fairness during the trials, no matter how predetermined the outcome. It would take a lot of guts to do the right thing and throw this fake election into the dustbin and see what comes out the other side. I’ve made my decision already and this judge, I believe, has also made his. It would be an absolute blast to be wrong about him.

  3. Wow, I have been reading Kari Lake’s Twitter feed.
    The famous words of “Rey” ( thank god he is not a Ray) Venezuela. Rey referring to the man clicking through the signatures as fast as the mouse will allow “when signatures are a perfect match you can verify signatures very quickly, 3 seconds is reasonable”.
    On another occasion Rey says “signatures are never a perfect match” and a long preamble about, if I signed my name right now in front of you it will still be different from my previous and my next signature.
    On an another occasion my friend Rey spoke of it can take “5, 6 or even up to 20 seconds to verify or not a signature.

    The closing statement for Lake was basically that what took place in Maricopa county was not “Signature Verification ” as the time taken to process some 300,000 (3 seconds) ballot envelope signatures was insignificant to abide by Arizona law. They had to be compared with the registered signature for the named person at the address on the envelope.

    Sorry to be so long winded. But I think there will be a Governor Lake very soon.


    1. Ray,

      While she apparently met the nearly impossible signature portion of the judges requirement, do you think Lake met the threshold that it would change the outcome of the election? That is what the Judge said would be required even though Arizona law does not require such proof, only that the outcome is in doubt.

      1. An interesting point made in the Twitter feed was that Lake’s team had expert witnesses that produced all the figures as in seconds per signature etc and none of their tables or calculations were disputed or challenged. Hobbe’s team had no expert witnesses. They just had Venezuela.
        At one point on the third day there was much discussion about who was allowed to talk about the calculations and Venezuela was trashed and told by the Judge several times he could only say what he knew to be factual and true.
        Day one or two Venezuela was asked who helped him do a particular analysis, and Venezuela insisted he did it by himself.
        Whereas on day 3, Venezuela was brutally (in a nice polite way) cross examined over the maths and had to admit he didn’t know the difference between an average and a percentage.

        I sensed that the Judge appreciated the formal and correct way that Lake’s lawyers presented their case and was peeved by the constant objections of the Hobbs’s Lawyers.

        I would call it a slam dunk for Lake, but this is Arizona, who knows what threats and corrupt dealing are lurking in the background. If the judge rules for Lake it will be huge huge affront to all the corrupt forces, Federal government, FBI, DOJ.C.I.A. sort of everyone that can hurt you, even the drug lords and cartels.


  4. <i. An interesting point made in the Twitter feed … on day 3, Venezuela was brutally (in a nice polite way) cross examined over the maths and had to admit he didn’t know the difference between an average and a percentage.

    I do not challenge or doubt this claim but I politely ask where the twitter account or thread or this particular Q/A was published.

    1. Kari Lake Twitter. Type it all in google and you get the real kari Lake.
      There appears to be more than one. Lots of exits and time wasting traps.
      Some of the other bits that appear are good.
      There was a woman with interesting first hand incites.
      I haven’t found a real good summary yet, which is why I tried to give incites.
      Actually watching the court case it self is excellent. About 5 hours over each of 3 days.
      I watched about 3 to 4 hours of the first two days and 2 hours early in the third day and the closing section of the last day.

      Been quite fascinating.
      A life and death struggle with the Judge trying to keep it honest.

      The stakes are huge, Hobbe’s team defending the indefensible. Protecting the lying and cheating and fraud.


    1. The actual cross examination of Venezuela when he admits ha doesn’t know the difference between an average and a percentage I witnessed myself.
      I’m quite sure it is in the last hour on the third day.
      It totally destroyed the credibility of any of the Hobbe’s team ability to do or be trusted with the maths. And Venezuela was their maths man.
      They all spent three days arguing about numbers.
      That’s why I think it is Lake with a slam dunk.
      Maybe the Judge will go with a bit of dodgy law and rule against Lake and then it is back to the Supreme Court and an easy win there in about 8 months time. There’s a few bodies out and about already.


  5. Haha. Matthew, facts are wonderful things.
    Clicking through 270,000 ballots in less than 3 seconds is not “signature verification “.
    And there is case law. Reyes V somebody ( name forgotten) 1975 in Arizona the court case was lost because there was enough time for the signature verification to take place. This case was brought up by Lake’s team.
    Expect facts to win not bullshit.

    Judges are meant to be logical. This Judge talked about factual statement and heresy.
    He had lots of objections by the Hobbe’s team that he made suggestions to the Lake team as to “how to ask the same question in a different way that bypassed the objection”.

    The Judges behaviour in court was appropriate behaviour I would expect from a seeker of truth.

    I will eat much humble pie if my perceptions prove faulty and the Judge doesn’t use the “facts” as his defence to rule in Lakes favour.


  6. Well that was a very fast come upperence for me.
    Humble pie for a week.

    The court has said Lake has failed to meet the bar to be and was unsuccessful in her case.

    Now comes the appeal.

    I might shut up now.


    1. Ray,

      No humble pie for you. You made your judgment based on evidence, the judge has other considerations which are paramount to law and evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s