As I understand the argument
Butter is saying the Hawaiian replies to the initial request from Arizona were lawyered to death and are therefore meaningless
You are saying that Hawaii replied regardless
Can you see any reason Hawaii would ask for a change in the initial request?
I’m saying Hawaii verified everything for which Bennett asked, did so according to HRS 338-14.3, and that their response was meaningful not worthless.
They did not ask for any such change. They asked Bennett to prove he had a legitimate governmental need for the verification. He provided that on May 17th. He did not drop any part of his original request.
He received verification for everything he requested. Butter simply does not understand the statute she cites as it applies to the “request form” and therefore she draws errant conclusions based on a faulty premise.
(I am not copying her on this because I’ve asked her to enjoy time with her family this holiday weekend. I do not want to responsible for taking her time away from her kids.)