Arizona county voted to certify election "under duress"

Hotair ^ | 11/29/2022 | Jazz Shaw

[SeekAndFind]

The 2022 midterm “election that never ends” in Arizona is still managing to stir up controversies even after the deadline for certifying the election passed yesterday. Maricopa County remains the focus of attention for much of the current clown show. They somehow certified their election results last night, though court challenges are still playing out. But other counties have been witnessing additional drama as well. Mohave County, located in the northwestern corner of the state, is far less densely populated than Maricopa, but their Board of Supervisors raised eyebrows last night when two of the members voted to certify the election results, but only did so “under duress” after they were threatened with jail time if they failed to vote “aye” during the roll call. One of the members raised the obvious question of why they should bother to have a vote if the decision to certify is mandatory. (Just the News)

Two members of the Mohave County, Ariz., Board of Supervisors on Monday voted to certify the results of the Nov. 8 midterm elections “under duress,” claiming he was forced to do so under threat of jail time.

“I vote ‘aye’ under duress. I found out today that I have no choice but to vote ‘Aye’ or I will be arrested and charged with a felony,” Gould said while casting his vote. “I don’t think that that is what the founders had in mind when they used the democratic process to elect our leaders.”

“I find that very disheartening,” he concluded. Video footage of the vote showed Gould raise his objections. Just the News has sought comment from Gould.

🚨 Breaking 🚨

"I found out today that I have no choice but to vote "Aye" or I will be arrested and charged with a felony."

Ron Gould of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors was told he would be arrested if he did not certify the election.

Mohave was certified under duress. pic.twitter.com/Urt0aWIiyM

— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) November 29, 2022

Ron Gould wasn’t the only member to receive such a threat and vote under duress. Hildy Angius also expressed reservations but voted to certify the results. She pointed out that her concerns were not for Mohave County, where she said there had been no issues with the count or the voting machines. She was more upset over the issues in Maricopa County, which she described as being “the laughingstock of the country and the world.”

Mohave County only has roughly 250,000 people as compared to the many millions in Maricopa, so perhaps it makes sense that their voting might have gone more smoothly. But they somehow managed to have all of their voting machines functioning properly on election day, a feat that Maricopa totally failed to achieve. And nobody seems to be questioning the results of the local races in Mohave either.

Not all of Arizona’s counties were willing to toe the line. Cochise County is located at the opposite end of the state (in the southeast corner) and has an even smaller population than Mohave, at roughly 125,000, and it is being sued for not certifying the vote by the deadline.

Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs sued a Republican-controlled county Monday after it refused to certify its election results by the state’s statutory deadline.

The lawsuit, filed in Arizona Superior Court, aims to compel the Cochise County Board of Supervisors to certify the county’s results from the Nov. 8 election. The deadline for county certification is Monday.

Similar to Mohave County, the Cochise County Board of Supervisors is not suggesting that their results are in question. They simply preferred to wait until all the bugs are worked out of the results in Maricopa. But the optics of this suit are awful and serve as yet another reason why Katie Hobbs should have recused herself from any involvement in finalizing the election. Hobbs, a Democrat, is now suing a county with a GOP majority running it, trying to force them to certify the gubernatorial election where she has been declared the winner while the results are still being disputed. The entire situation smells toxic.

Personally, I don’t know how much longer the Maricopa situation can drag on. Kari Lake has put on a spirited fight and raised many valid questions. The massive failures of the voting machines on election day clearly require a full investigation. And it wasn’t an unreasonable assumption to think that the ballots that were submitted in person on election day (and among the last to be counted) should have leaned heavily toward the Republican candidate. But thus far, the expected final surge in Lake’s favor simply hasn’t materialized unless there was some serious and blatant tampering going on.

If there is proof that Kari Lake actually prevailed on November 8th, someone needs to produce it very soon. Otherwise, this situation will drag on interminably, which isn’t going to be good for anyone. But the far more pressing issue is what Arizona can possibly do to fix its electoral process before 2024 so this sort of debacle doesn’t play out for the third time in a row.

[Drago]

Contesting the election comes after the board of supervisors accepts the canvass of the election...AZ election law is here:

https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16

(See section “16-673”, etc.)(Failure to “perform duties as an election officer” penalties are sections 16-1009 & 16-1010).

[rolling_stone]

https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/2021_EPM_October_1_Submission.pdf

manual
page 262
The Board of Supervisors has a non-discretionary duty to canvass the returns as provided by the
County Recorder or other officer in charge of elections and has no authority to change vote totals
or reject the election results

[Drago]

Thanks for the link...yeah, only acceptable reason for a postponement (Mojave Co. did 1) is “still waiting on results”. BofS accepts the canvass after all results are in...only reason to vote “no” are delayed results from a polling place.

[rolling_stone]

in this case the law is an ass..

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_law_is_an_ass

[JohnBovenmyer]

So the "manual" written by SOS & Candidate Hobbs has the rules she wants. Administrative "law." What does the legislative law say on the subject. Requiring an official to always answer "yes" to a "yes/no" question begs the question of why require them to answer it at all and renders the procedural step null. Hobbs's interpretation may suit her, but it's hard to imagine as the intent of a legislature a judge supporting it even though IIRC some judge did provide just such an order last AZ election. If the legislature had said anything about what happens after non-certification that would prove her interpretation false.

[rolling_stone]

I agree

since the board of supervisors has no discretion over certifying why have them do it? it places them in an untenable position..is non discretionary against public policy and thus void? is it fraudulent to not give the sups discretion and require them to certify?“ “certify”” an election should not other language be used rather than certify, such as the totals are correct.

[rolling_stone]

paper chase...

2019 manual supposedly approved by governor and attorney general...and has force of law..is that true????

2019 Elections Procedures Manual
Official Elections Procedures Manual
The Arizona Elections Procedures Manual helps ensure election practices are consistent and efficient throughout the state. A new law requires the Secretary of State to send a draft of the manual to the governor and attorney general for review by October 1 of every odd-numbered year. The Elections Procedures Manual has the force of law and went into effect upon approval by the attorney general and governor.

https://azsos.gov/elections/about-elections/elections-procedures-manual

[rolling_stone]

arizona revised statutes
16-622. Official canvass; unofficial results

The board of supervisors shall declare elected the person receiving the highest number of votes cast for each office to be filled by the electors of the county or a subdivision thereof, and the clerk of the board shall, unless enjoined from so doing by an order of the court, deliver to each such person, upon compliance with the provisions imposed by law upon candidates for office as conditions precedent to the issuance of such certificates, a certificate of election, signed by the clerk and authenticated with the seal of office of the board of supervisors.

[TheCipher]

There is nothing in the administrative law that says they have to certify (AZ calls it canvass)by Monday, and if they don't, they are in violation. This is all the law says:

16-648. Canvass for state offices, amendments and measures; postponement

A. On the fourth Monday following a general election, the secretary of state, in the presence of the governor and the attorney general, shall canvass all offices for which the nominees filed nominating petitions and papers with the secretary of state pursuant to section 16-311, subsection E.

B. The secretary of state, in the presence of the governor and the chief justice of the supreme court, shall canvass all proposed constitutional amendments and initiated or referred measures, as shown by the certified copies of official canvass received from the several counties, and forthwith certify the result to the governor.

C. If the official canvass of any county has not been received on the fourth Monday following the general election, the canvass shall be postponed from day to day, not to exceed thirty days from the date of the election, until canvasses from all counties are received.

So, if they didn't certify on Monday they have 30 days.

[rolling_stone]

thirty days from date of election..yes

[TheCipher]

Yes, so they had until Dec 8.There was no cause for them to come in an threaten them with felony charges ( by the way , isn’t that threatening and intimidating an election official. Though that was against the law) if they didn’t do it by Nov 28.

[SaveFerris]

I remember America.

That was a long, long time ago when it still existed.

[rolling_stone]

and the sos already sued one county???

[TheCipher]

Yes.That 30 day provision was put in in case there were complaints from citizens about the voting. It allowed time to investigate,and if necessary, to bring to a court. Of course this was on the premise that counting would be concluded the day after the election. By dragging the counting out for three weeks that doesn’t give enough time to investigate or to bring action.Thd SOS is trying to eliminate the last week by forcing them to certify before Dec 8

[PubliusMM]

If they cannot reject the results, then what value is to be found in their ‘approval’?

Makes absolutely no sense to thinking persons, anywhere.

[Fraxinus]

I will add two other problems, everyone involved know that if they declare the 2022 results invalid they are also by implication indicating that the 2020 results were invalid, and a large part of the Judiciary is still stung by the leftist claims of “selected not elected” about the 2000 election.

[rolling_stone]

aha yes as i said before the law is an ass...it is not a certification...

[Roadrunner383]

If the votes from Cochise County or Mohave County were to be excluded when the state certifies the election, what would that accomplish? It will give Dems victories in down ballot races. It will throw away the votes of honest Republicans who took the time and effort to vote.

[NNN]

The counties only certify their own results. The Mohave Board pushed it as far as they could within their prescribed responsibilities under the election statutes (emphases added):

The governing body of a special district as defined in title 48 shall present to the board of supervisors a certified copy of the official canvass of the election at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board of supervisors.

[…]

The canvass of the election returns shall be made in public by opening the returns, other than the ballots, and determining the vote of the county, by polling places, for each person voted for...

[…]

When the result of the canvass is determined, a statement, known and designated as the official canvass, shall be entered on the official record of the election district that shall show:

[…]

4. The number of votes by precincts and county received by each candidate.

[…]

The board of supervisors shall declare elected the person receiving the highest number of votes … and the clerk of the board shall ... deliver to each such person ... a certificate of election, signed by the clerk and authenticated with the seal of office of the board of supervisors.