Posted on 04/27/2021 6:44:16 PM PDT by Fido969
PHOENIX (AP) — A judge hearing a challenge to voter privacy policies during the Republican-controlled Arizona Senate's recount of 2.1 million 2020 election ballots in the county that includes metro Phoenix said Tuesday he is not convinced voter secrecy is being upheld.
The comment from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Martin came at the end of a lengthy hearing where he also declined to extend a previous judge's order that auditors hired by the Senate comply with state voter privacy laws -- at least until he hears more at a hearing on Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
This was an unforced error by a pub legal effort that has, at times, looked pretty ineffective, and willing to shoot themselves in the foot in a heartbeat.
Gotta protect the privacy of all those ghost voters.
If that’s all the judge has, it seems like adjustments to the process could be made to satisfy his “doubts.”
Or, the republicans could go all democrat on him and have 16 women suddenly come forward claiming he raped them in high school.
You know dam well this audit is not happening.
F-— voter privacy.
I have doubts about election integrity and that’s much more important.
ML/NJ
The second choice is the best.
Being a Rat he undoubtedly has something that could be used. Napolitano wouldnt have appointed him if not.
I'd like to hear how the judge thinks it is possible for voter secrecy to me damaged in any way. How, apart from some unrealistic method like doing DNA analysis on millions of ballots, would any voter's ballot be associated with them?
Maybe the judge doesn't realize that the ballots don't have the voter's names on them, or any other voter specific information.
In theory if every ballot from one locationally identifiable group of ballots had the same choice and that information was released then the public would know that all the voters in some precinct chose a particular candidate. Or that something very unusual was going on. But nowhere in our system of voting is there any assurance that a unanimous vote doesn't result in everyone else knowing you voted the same as them.
Ya, cuz somebody may have written their life history on the ballot.....
How did the plaintiffs establish standing? After the election, there was nobody alive with standing to challenge the procedure. Just who are these guys?
Was that anything like the “Democrat-controlled impeachment of President Trump?”
Just wondering if the AP has a standard for how they phrase such things in their reporting.
I think it’s going to be a shaky tightrope walk on this one.
The count is already a week in. Shutting it down now will pack his court with proponents of the count and make any further motions on what should be only a brief restraining order on the count is going to be quite painful.
I think the Dems are most scared of they don’t know what’s happening during the audit and communication is scarce because they know there’s the possibility of it being followed if it’s on email/messaging.
I’d say that the judge tomorrow will attempt to inject DNC operatives to “make sure the counting/voter rights are respected” so the DNC gets an in on the process and so they can fight it when the results invariably show massive discrepancies. They can’t have PA and GA pick this up and pursue it, because then the whole election comes into question.
If it is stoped they should release whatever they have.
Assuming the absentee ballots have been separated from their signed envelopes, they cannot be identified. I believe once signatures are verified, the envelope is tossed. No idea how Maricopa County runs their system. Other than the envelope, I can't think of another way to identify the voter.
It’s just an excuse - it does not have to make sense.
The Republican filing with the Arizona SC asserting that the courts have no jurisdiction regarding actions of the legislature in this matter is looking more important now.
You know dam well this audit is not happening.
//
yep
Fortunately there are more Republicans than Dem judges on the Arizona appellate court in case this Dem trial judge decides the case based on his politics
“This was an unforced error by a pub legal effort...”
This is the Arizona GOP. It was a DELIBERATE ACT meant to sabotage the recount!
What I want to know is why is this judge not now being forced to recuse himself?
The first judge, by law, had to recuse because a former clerk is now one of the attorneys to the case.
This judge used to work for Brown and Bain which merged with Perkins Coie. Now, Perkins Coie is one of the attorneys to the case.
How is this legal for the judge to continue to preside?
“The Republican filing with the Arizona SC asserting that the courts have no jurisdiction regarding actions of the legislature in this matter is looking more important now.”
Fully agree, especially since this will be decided politically on the court Republicans on the court outnumber Dems. The Dem trial judge currently reviewing this is fully aware of that fact
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.