Let's examine the reason courts rejected voting fraud cases.
Arizona Supreme Court upholds election challenge dismissal | AP News 1-5-21
Arizona Supreme Court upholds election challenge dismissal
FILE - In this Nov. 4, 2020, file photo, Maricopa County elections officials count ballots in Phoenix. A federal judge on Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2020, heard arguments over whether to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to decertify election results the election results that gave Democrat President-elect Joe Biden his Arizona victory. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)
BY BOB CHRISTIE AND JACQUES BILLEAUD
Published 10:33 PM EST, January 5, 2021
PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court decision dismissing the last in a series of challenges that sought to decerify Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the state.
The high court ruling is the second time the majority-Republican court has turned aside an appeal of a court loss by backers of President Donald Trump seeking to overturn the results of the election. In all, eight lawsuits challenging Biden’s Arizona win have failed. It comes the day before a divided Congress is set to certify Biden’s victory.
Eight lawsuits failed in Arizona within two months of the polls closing in Nov 2020. That was not time to investigate, collate, analyze and submit voting fraud evidence in court, so that factor alone would prove court cases failed for lack of preparation and investigation, not for evidence that was disproven by the court. But that is not why the court ruled against the voting fraud case. It was not the evidence the court said was invalid, but the people had no jurisdictional right to bring the cases that the high court ruled made the voting fraud cases invalid.
Tuesday’s ruling from a four-judge panel of the high court agreed with a trial court judge in Pinal County that plaintiff Staci Burk lacked the right to contest the election. (The case was dismissed on a technicality by the judge who never ruled that the evidence of fraud was invalid.) That’s because she wasn’t a registered voter at the time she filed her lawsuit, as required in state election contests. Both courts also agreed that she made her legal challenge too late (another technicality that said nothing about the validity of the voting fraud evidence), after the five-day period for filing such an action had passed.
Burk said in her lawsuit that she was a qualified Arizona voter, but officials said they discovered she wasn’t registered to vote. She later said she mistakenly thought “qualified electors” were people who were merely eligible to vote, and that her voter registration was canceled because election workers were unable to verify her address.
The Supreme Court said the fact that she wasn’t a registered voter was fatal to her ability to file an election challenge (the case was dismissed on a technicality, not on lack of evidence of fraud) and that Burk admitted she knew she wasn’t registered.
“There is nothing before the Court to indicate that Appellant timely contacted the appropriate authorities to correct any problems with her voter registration,” Chief Justice Robert Brutinel wrote. “An election challenge ... is not the proper vehicle to reinstate voter registration.”
Biden won the state over Republican President Donald Trump by more than 10,000 votes and the results were certified last month.
The lawsuit brought by Burk, who isn’t a lawyer but represented herself, is nearly identical to a lawsuit dismissed in early December in federal court in Phoenix.
Burk’s lawsuit alleged Arizona’s election systems have security flaws that let election workers and foreign countries manipulate results. Opposing attorneys said the lawsuit used conspiracy theories to make allegations against a voting equipment vendor without any proof to back up claims of widespread election fraud in Arizona.
No evidence of voter or election fraud has emerged in Arizona.
Despite that, Republicans who control the Legislature are pushing to review how Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, ran its election. Two subpoenas issued by the state Senate seeking an audit and to review voting machines, ballots and other materials are being challenged by Maricopa County. (i.e., the county is obstructing voting fraud investigations)
Two of the failed legal challenges focused on the use of Sharpies to complete ballots were dismissed. (Dismissed without cause given. So typical of leftist voting fraud crooks and their mobocracy of supporters.)
Another lawsuit in which the Trump campaign sought inspection of ballots was dismissed after the campaign’s lawyer acknowledged the small number of ballots at issue wouldn’t have changed the outcome. (Evidence of voting fraud is not disproven, just dismissed because in the judges' eyes there was probably not enough fraud there to change the outcome of the crooked election.)
A judge dismissed a lawsuit in which the Arizona Republican Party tried to determine whether voting machines had been hacked. (Voting fraud cases were dismissed by biased judges who didn't bother to support their decisions with evidence or back their rulings with facts and logic.)
Then a separate challenge by Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward was tossed out by a judge who concluded the Republican leader failed to prove fraud and that the evidence presented at trial wouldn’t reverse Trump’s defeat. (The case is tossed out, not because the evidence of fraud was not there, but because in the judges' eyes there was insufficient evidence from deep dive investigations [the type of investigations that typically take months to complete] and the evidence was insufficient to have changed the outcome of the election results as reported by the compromised election officials.) The state Supreme Court upheld that decision in an earlier ruling.
And a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by conservative lawyer Sidney Powell, who alleged widespread election fraud through the manipulation of voting equipment. Burk’s lawsuit repeated some of Powell’s allegations word-for-word. (This lawsuit was tossed out by a compromised judge without even attempting to have the machines examined to determine whether or not the plaintiff's claim was valid.)
___
This story has been corrected to show that the court is majority Republican, not all Republican.
