3 ms·

> Quite literally the appellate court cited that they should have brought the claims earlier. didnt they bring claims before the election about it that got thr

> Quite literally the appellate court cited that they should have brought the claims earlier. didnt they bring claims before the election about it that got thrown out because no injury yet? Or am I confusing things?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ModernMech 4y ago
In the period when cases were being brought after the 2020 election, there was a pervasive talking point that the cases were not being heard on their merits, and were being dismissed for "mere" procedural reasons like standing. Notwithstanding that the cases notably refused to allege election fraud (Rudy Giuliani famously refused to make a claim of fraud in front of a judge, but claimed fraud profusely in front of TV audiences), in the years since every election has been looked at fully and thoroughly. All ok the claims made in the last months of 2020 have been shown to be baseless. Not just Arizona -- Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan all had zero fraud of the kind alleged.
blacksqr 4y ago
Arizona state law requires that challenges to existing election procedures must be brought before the election. From the appellate decision: "at best, Lake’s signature-verification claim attacked Maricopa County’s process for verifying signatures that first-level reviewers questioned—a challenge to the County’s election procedures, not a claim that the overall procedures were violated. Accordingly, the superior court correctly concluded that Lake’s contest attacked the manner of holding an election"
- Akronymus 4y ago
  ah yes, thats the one I was thinking of.
blacksqr 4y ago
Before the election Lake et al. brought a lawsuit to bar use of voting machines. Suit was thrown out because judge ruled they offered only conjecture and speculation, no evidence, and lawyers were sanctioned for lying to the judge.

3 ms·

> Quite literally the appellate court cited that they should have brought the claims earlier. didnt they bring claims before the election about it that got thr

by Akronymus 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ModernMech 4y ago
In the period when cases were being brought after the 2020 election, there was a pervasive talking point that the cases were not being heard on their merits, and were being dismissed for "mere" procedural reasons like standing. Notwithstanding that the cases notably refused to allege election fraud (Rudy Giuliani famously refused to make a claim of fraud in front of a judge, but claimed fraud profusely in front of TV audiences), in the years since every election has been looked at fully and thoroughly. All ok the claims made in the last months of 2020 have been shown to be baseless. Not just Arizona -- Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan all had zero fraud of the kind alleged.
blacksqr 4y ago
Arizona state law requires that challenges to existing election procedures must be brought before the election. From the appellate decision: "at best, Lake’s signature-verification claim attacked Maricopa County’s process for verifying signatures that first-level reviewers questioned—a challenge to the County’s election procedures, not a claim that the overall procedures were violated. Accordingly, the superior court correctly concluded that Lake’s contest attacked the manner of holding an election"
- Akronymus 4y ago
  ah yes, thats the one I was thinking of.
blacksqr 4y ago
Before the election Lake et al. brought a lawsuit to bar use of voting machines. Suit was thrown out because judge ruled they offered only conjecture and speculation, no evidence, and lawyers were sanctioned for lying to the judge.