> Point to a single court case in the US regarding this election year where evidence was presented in court and judged. Kind of depends on what precisely you m

> Point to a single court case in the US regarding this election year where evidence was presented in court and judged. Kind of depends on what precisely you mean by "presented in court and judged", but the evidence was evaluated by judges and found wanting: Bowyer v. Ducey, in Arizona [0]: > The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections. Because the Complaint is grounded in these fraud allegations, the Complaint shall be dismissed. > Plaintiffs first “describe specific violations of Arizona law” to support their fraud claims. In doing so, they attach declarations from poll watchers that observed election officials during the November General Election. As Intervenor-Defendant Maricopa County points out, these are the only declarants offered by Plaintiffs with first-hand observation of the election administration. But these four declarants do not allege fraud at all... These objections to the manner in which Arizona officials administered the election cannot serve to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Arizona because they fail to present evidence that supports the underlying fraud claim. > The sheer unreliability of the information underlying Mr. Briggs’ “analysis” of Mr. Braynard’s “data” cannot plausibly serve as a basis to overturn a presidential election, much less support plausible fraud claims against these Defendants. > To lend support to this theory [of voting machines being hacked], Plaintiffs offer expert Russell Ramsland, Jr., who asserts there was “an improbable, and possibly impossible spike in processed votes” in Maricopa and Pima Counties at 8:46 p.m. on November 3, 2020... Thus, the Court finds that while this “spike” could be explained by an illicit hacking of voting machinery in Arizona, the spike is “not only compatible with, but indeed was more likely explained by, lawful, unchoreographed” reporting of early ballot tabulation in those counties. ---- King v. Whitmer, in Michigan [1]: > The Court may deny Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief for the reasons discussed above. Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to analyze the merits of their claims. > Plaintiffs attempt to establish an Equal Protection claim based on the theory that Defendants engaged in “several schemes” to, among other things, “destroy,” “discard,” and “switch” votes for President Trump, thereby “devalu[ing] Republican votes” and “diluting” the influence of their individual votes. > But, to be perfectly clear, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is not supported by any allegation that Defendants’ alleged schemes caused votes for President Trump to be changed to votes for Vice President Biden. > But of course, “[a] belief [from a sworn affidavit] is not evidence” and falls far short of what is required to obtain any relief, much less the extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request. > With nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim fails. ---- Law v. Whitmer, in Nevada [2]: > The Court nonetheless considers the totality of the evidence provided by Contestants in reaching and ruling upon the merits of their claims. > Contestants offered Mr. Baselice to opine on the incidence of illegal voting in the 2020 General Election based on a phone survey of voters. > The Court questions Mr. Baselice's methodology because he was unable to identify the source of the data for his survey and conducted no quality control of the data he received. > Contestants offered Mr. Kamzol to opine that significant illegal voting occurred in Nevada during the 2020 General Election, based on his analysis of various commercially available databases of voters. > The Court questions Mr. Kamzol's methodology because he had little to no information or supervision over the origins of his data, the manner in which it had been matched, and what the rate of false positives would be. Additionally, there was little or no verification of his numbers. > As reflected herein, the Court finds that the expert testimony provided by Contestants was of little to no value. The Court did not exclude consideration of this evidence, which it could have, but gave it very little weight. ---- There's more, but I hope I've made my point: evidence was considered in more than one case, and was found to be insufficient to rule in the plaintiffs' favor. ---- > Every single case was dismissed on procedural grounds. At least based on my reading of the ruling, this is wrong. Law v. Whitmer was dismissed due to the presented evidence being insufficient: > CONCLUSION > The Contestants failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence to substantiate any of the grounds set forth in NRS 293.410 to contest the November 3, 2020 General Election ---- [0]: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Order-Granting-MTD.pdf https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/... [1]: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Preview_7405F132-B4F1-4A0A-9BB1-28CB11C48E21.pdf https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/... [2]: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-OC-00163-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-Statement-of-Contest.pdf https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/... Edit: Remove unnecessary "emphasis added" Edit 2: Add section pointing out Law v. Whitmer was not dismissed on procedural grounds