1. Did the panel err in deciding that a century of precedent applies the clear-and- convincing standard to all aspects of election contests, contrary to Parker v. City of Tucson, 233 Ariz. 422, 436 n.14 (App. 2013), in which Division Two recognized that the evidentiary standard remains an open question in cases— like this— where there is neither express statutory standard nor an allegation of fraud?
2. Given the EPM’s requirement that “the number of ballots inside the container shall be counted and noted on the retrieval form” “[w]hen the secure ballot container is opened,” EPM, Chapter 2, §I.7.h.1, did the panel err in holding that the EPM does not “impos[e] any express time requirement” for “when” to count ballots and that “an initial estimate” of ballots is all that the law requires?
3. Did the panel err when it ignored the undisputed fact that 35,563 unaccounted for ballots were added to the total number of ballots at a third party processing facility—an amount far exceeding the vote margin between Hobbs and Lake—holding that fact was insufficient to show the election’s outcome was at least “uncertain” under Findley, 35 Ariz. at 269?
4. Did the panel err when it ignored the fact that Maricopa did not perform L&A testing as required by EPM and A.R.S. §16-449?
5. Did the panel err when it ignored the evidence that Maricopa’s failure to perform L&A testing caused massive disruptions to voting on Election Day disenfranchising thousands of Republican voters, and rejecting evidence that the chaos made the election outcome at least “uncertain” under Findley, 35 Ariz. at 269?
7. Did the panel err in dismissing the Equal Protection and Due Process claims on the pleadings as “duplicative” of Count II, without considering the additional issues that equal-protection and due-process review add to Maricopa’s misconduct, such as the targeting of Republican voters and the “patent and fundamental unfairness” of targeted election disruptions?
5. Did the panel err when it ignored the evidence that Maricopa’s failure to perform L&A testing caused massive disruptions to voting on Election Day disenfranchising thousands of Republican voters, and rejecting evidence that the chaos made the election outcome at least “uncertain” under Findley, 35 Ariz. at 269?
7. Did the panel err in dismissing the Equal Protection and Due Process claims on the pleadings as “duplicative” of Count II, without considering the additional issues that equal-protection and due-process review add to Maricopa’s misconduct, such as the targeting of Republican voters and the “patent and fundamental unfairness” of targeted election disruptions?
2. Given the EPM’s requirement that “the number of ballots inside the container shall be counted and noted on the retrieval form” “[w]hen the secure ballot container is opened,” EPM, Chapter 2, §I.7.h.1, did the panel err in holding that the EPM does not “impos[e] any express time requirement” for “when” to count ballots and that “an initial estimate” of ballots is all that the law requires?