You quoted what I wrote but seem not to have read it. I didn’t write that Richter was “flat out lying” — I said
that the author of the article was not telling the whole truth.
What matters is whether Maracopa County verified signatures in a manner that complied with AZ law and the county’s own policies. The measures Richter talks about might accomplish that, but they sound very much ad hoc and untested. Who verified that the procedure he described was accurate? How? Degree of accuracy? Any evidence that casts it in doubt?
I expect the judge to refuse to allow Lake’s experts to examine the signatures, or depose all the checkers, etc. It would be in the best interest of all AZ voters for the judge to appoint a Special Master, who would oversee a examination of a large sample (say 1000) of the “accepted” signatures versus the signature on file. That could yield a percentage of how many were actually bad. If that percentage times the overall quantity that required validation exceeds 17,500 ish, then Lake has shown that the methodology used by the county apparently failed. If not it makes sense to end the case.
The article's about the Runbeck software, not the "whole truth".
Who verified that the procedure he described was accurate? How? Degree of accuracy? Any evidence that casts it in doubt?
The county recorder is going to produce all the procedures they followed and the results of the audits they performed.
It's up to Kari to show that they didn't follow procedures.
She can't just ask the court for a fishing epedition - she needs to present evidence that the processes weren't followed.
No court will let anyone access to all the voter information absent strong evidence of a problem.