Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirms Biden's win in state

The Arizona Supreme Court late Tuesday threw out the bid by the head of the state Republican Party to void the results of the presidential race.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices said that party Chairwoman Kelli Ward failed to present any evidence of misconduct or illegal votes in the tally that found Joe Biden outpolled President Trump in Arizona.

Chief Justice Robert Brutinel, writing for the court, said Ward, who has the burden of proof when challenging an election, provided no evidence that the electors pledged to Trump got more votes than those pledged to Biden, “let alone (to) establish any degree of fraud or a sufficient error rate that would undermine the certainty of the election results.”

Brutinel acknowledged, as did the trial judge, that there were some errors made when damaged or ballots with extra marks had to be redone by hand so they could be fed through counting machines.

But he said a random check of 1,626 of these ballots ordered by the trial court found an error rate of as little as 0.37% or as much 0.55%.

Extrapolating that out to the 27,869 ballots that had to be duplicated, Brutinel said it would have gained Trump just 103 votes or, at best, 153 votes, “neither of which is sufficient to call the election results into question.” https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-supreme-court-unanimously-affirms-bidens-win-in-state/article_4a5758a7-db8d-52f9-9237-2c0c4b0550ac.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

I’m at the point where all the election news is just sickening! THe various arguments and details and niceties and legal precedents and goes to the House or state legisltures and on and on - none of these seem really a viable solution to the fraud. And the various opinions, the worst of all, almost. I see nothing that will work other than throwing out the election and having another one.

L.J., I don’t think that another election would be constitutional. If SC does not act we have the insurrection option. If they invalidate it might go back to the state legislatures to select electors, or, if they dont,and if there is no resolution and votes are equal, then to the Congress to decide.

We’ve pushed off and are about 1/2 way down the ski jump. No going back to the top now! (Focus on the end of the ramp and your jump point!)

That was a beauiful sunset picture last nite! Thanks!

(almost time for bed!)

I don’t believe the men who wrote the Constiutution could envision an election as filled with fraud as this one was. I don’t think the Constitution has a solution. Goes back to Congress? There won’t be a Congress as of Jan 3 as representatives’ terms expire. ANd currently it’s got a majority of commies (many of whom were the result of dirty elections).

And it’s not just the presidential election; Sidney Powell stated, and I think Trump mentioned as well, all the down ticket seats. Many Governors, congress and state results are dirty. And ballot measures. In my state supposedly the measure to legalize all drugs (meth, heroin, psyllicybin (sp?), cocaine, everything) passed. I do not believe it. I’m not even looking at OR election results because I know the elections here are dirty and stolen.

American can’t be great again if a bunch of states can keep their rotten election results.

If a state fails to appoint the electors the requisite total of electors is still there. The state simply failed in its duty to produce its share thus failed to vote. Your example would only be true if the state left the country. The Constitution still leaves a solution - the House !

If a State fails to appoint electors, then the "whole number of electors appointed" drops by that number. If they meant for it to be out of the total number of electors, then why add the term "appointed" to that sentence? That would then change the sentence to mean something other than what it clearly says. The Constitution needs no solution if States don't appoint electors - their votes simply aren't included, because they offered no votes. It's just like the House/Senate: the Constitution requires a quorum of 50%+1 to do business, and SCOTUS confirmed in US v Ballin that a majority of the quorum was sufficient to pass bills, it did not require a majority of the full House/Senate.

The race can still go to the House - if there's an exact tie between the top two, OR if enough third parties get EC votes to where the 'winner' fails to gain a majority of the EC votes. A simple plurality is not good enough.

Show me the Constitution where that’s correct.

"The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.