[JohnBovenmyer]

>Well, this is rather unexpected good news.

That's not my take. They endorsed every bad ruling the trial court made and sent it back, telling the trial judge to invent another bad ruling on the signature matching, rather than refusing to rule on it, for them to endorse. Honest judges would have ruled for Lake on all 7 instead of denying her on 6. Now we have to trust the judges who previously ignored a huge amount of truth 6 times to rule against Lake, to rule for her? IIRC one of the 6, probably the final one, could potentially be appealed to SCOTUS but otherwise the theft is done. Still waiting for a ruling from the lower judge Hamaden's call for either a new election or to let the rest of his votes be counted in the AG race. But so far it looks like the constitutional judicial system in AZ is completely gone. About the only hope I see remaining is if SCOTUS rules this term in favor of pure legislative oversight over elections, in which case the AZ legislature might be able to take some action in spite of "Gov. Hobbs."

[Rockingham]

Courts, especially collegial appellate courts, can be hard to predict because internal and external political and administrative considerations can break in unexpected ways. For example, if the Arizona Supreme Court wanted to overturn the election but avoid roiling the waters by undermining confidence in the state's election administration or embarrassing the trial judge, they might craft a reversal of the election result on a single narrow ground, after first giving the trial judge a chance to take back his decision to uphold the election. I am not saying that is where the case is heading, only that it is possible.