[frog in a pot]

Let me finish by noting that while Section -351 applies to voters and denies them standing, it does not expressly deprive a “candidate” of a challenge, nor does such a prohibition appear elsewhere.

Ergo, on the face of it, judicial review of the SoS’s certification is not prohibited and the single gate keeper concept continues to hold promise for patriots. But is judicial review otherwise available?

Interestingly, AZ judicially overturned SoS Brewer’s formal certification of voting machines (Chavez v Brewer). Because of their unique circumstances the plaintiffs had standing, brought suit via statutes and the state’s Constitution, and prevailed in meaningful parts.

While the facts are different than what we would expect here, this statement from Chavez is helpful:
That the authority to certify voting machines is not constitutionally committed to the secretary of state but is prescribed as one of her duties by the legislature is an important factor in our determination that judicial review of her actions is not inappropriate.

Cboldt, you can have the last word.

Red Steel, this has been a good thread, I hope we didn’t drive folks away.

[Cboldt]

-- judicial review of the SoS's certification is not prohibited and the single gate keeper concept continues to hold promise for patriots. But is judicial review otherwise available? --

I don't know if any of the birther suits, either against McCain or against Obama, were brought in Arizona, and then, against Brewer so the case would be tried in a state court.

Hopefully, my rationale is clear, in that an affirmative and express statutory right to avail court process is more likely to result in court process, than is an absence of statutory prohibition. Courts can (and do) duck issues; see numerous suits pertaining to eligibility for ballot access - not just Obama, but McCain as well. As far as I know, none of those cases was decided on the merits. No plaintiff had a statutory right to court process either.

In your remarks, you said that the voting machine issue involved "... suit via statutes and the state's Constitution." I presume you aren't meaning to imply there was a statutory right to sue for a judicial review of the SoS determination, but that the statutes gave the authority for certifying voting machines to the SoS.

[Cboldt]

-- Let me finish by noting that while Section -351 applies to voters and denies them standing --

I think you have a typo in that setup. Section 351 is what provides standing. It provides standing to voter and opponent alike.

I assumed that (it was a typo) when I composed my previous, and on second thought, decided it would be helpful to point out that 351 creates a right to challenge qualifications in court; and also prescribes timing, etc.