That sounds right, but I see a red flag. The judge was saying that elections have to follow statutory provisions. If there’s not a statutory provision that clearly spells out a requirement for Constitutional eligibility and/or a stautory definition of eligibility, the court may choose to deny the future motion if it gets filed and served properly.
Thank you for the clarification.
So in summary, the case was thrown out because the plaintiff didn’t serve the subpeona directly - they sent it via registered mail. Is this a total blunder or a means by which the Arizona court system gets this issue quashed by technicality??
It seems that everything that can go wrong, will go wrong - Murphy is at it again...