Money statement:
“The
margin of victory as reported by the official canvass is 17,117 votes – beyond the scope of a
statutorily required recount”
That’s an old trick. Using an absolute value vs a relative value.
The percentile margin is 0.6%, exactly 0.1% above the mandatory recount threshold.
So that gives away the rest of the Mormon conniver’s screed masquerading as a judgement. It’s carefully written to amplify the irrelevant and minimize the actual damages.
He claims in his basic ruling that Arizona law has long held a high standard:
“It is the object of elections to
ascertain a free expression of the will of the voters, and no mere irregularity can be considered,
unless it be shown that the result has been affected by such irregularity.”
42.5% of the votes in one county being tainted is a “mere irregularity”?
Guess that makes a gunshot wound a minor abrasion.
The opinion is a joke. It’s an intentional sandbag. He probably wrote it a week before the trial. No way he wrote this on Friday.
Where has it been verified that 42% of the vote has been “tainted?”
You make that statement like it’s a “given,” even calling them “actual damages.”
I admit that I didn’t watch or listen to the trial. Did someone present that 42% figure in argument or testimony, and if so was there any evidence to back that up?
Let me add a bit of a wrinkle when it comes to considering your 42% number. I’m going to use Maricopa County figures because Lake’s suit pertains to Maricopa County.
Maricopa reports that 1,311,734 votes (or 83.9%) were cast during “early voting” when NO printer/tabulation issues were experienced.
With 1,562,758 votes cast in the election, 42% would equal 656,358 “tainted” votes.
Only 248,070 votes were cast in person on election day in Maricopa County.