Dr. Sneeringer is still here, and Judge Mahoney is trying to referee his knowledge of a different voting system than the one used.
Dr. Sneeringer: "I know the industry."
Judge Mahoney DISALLOWS the witness. Expert, gone.
Judge Mahoney: "He doesn't know what you need to know, about this system."
Judge also rejects flailing defense request to proffer what he would have testified about it.
*plaintiff request
Sharpiegate attorney now suggesting that they were really bringing the expert witness to talk GENERALLY about voting systems.
Judge now asking County why expert was not allowed to examine system. Dep. Cty Atty Emily Crager said the request was made on Wed., while the public test
was being conducted.
Judge Mahoney generously gives Plaintiffs back some of their time, given that the "expert" witness generated a lot of "back and forth" argument among the attorneys.
Judge Mahoney generously brings the expert back to ONLY give some GENERAL testimony about voting systems. 5 minutes.
"I will give it the weight that I think it is due," judge says.
Dr. Sneeringer decrees that the ballot is lost by the equipment if the voter did not see the green checkmark after feeding it into the machine.
Next breath, "I can't say if the ballot was counted or not."
Plaintiffs counsel showing that they did learn about some new objections. "Objection, asked and answered, and..."
Judge Mahoney: "No speaking objections, Ms. Becker."
The semi-expert witness acknwoledges there is no perfect voting system.
Dr. Sneeringer: "There's nothing perfect in this world, including voting systems."
"Dr. Sneeringer, you are free to go."
Judge Mahoney ready to move to oral argument on the two Motions to Dismiss, combined with closings on the evidence that was presented.
It's 5 o'clock somewhere... but not in Judge Mahoney's court. (Much to the chagrin of one party.)
Kolodin now making an argument that the cameras cannot satisfy the requirement that electronic adjudication can be observed. Moves to argument that the voter has standing as to their ballot - that would be two votes potentially for Trump in this case.
Here is the statute that Kolodin represents requires "perfectly accurate" counting systems. Judge Mahoney calls him on it:
"2. Permit each elector to vote at any election for any person for any office whether or not nominated as a candidate, to vote for as many...
...persons for an office as the elector is entitled to vote for and to vote for or against any question on which the elector is entitled to vote, and the vote tabulating equipment shall reject choices recorded on the elector's ballot if the number of choices exceeds the...
number that the elector is entitled to vote for the office or on the measure. azleg.gov/viewdocument/?…
Kolodin runs out of argument time, after having addressed only 1 of his (5 or 6) causes of action.
Defendants' arguments:
Oops, plaintiffs messed up (again), because Maricopa County is already certifying the vote this afternoon. The case is no longer "justiciable".
Plus, Ms. Aguilera cannot vote twice.
If your defense bingo card has: non-justiciable, lack of standing, laches, failure to seek mandamus, failure to allege substantive deprivation of rights.......you may have already won.
Defense:
Plaintiffs can't prove that their votes were not counted. The Constitution requires that a ballot can't be traced back to an individual. Secret ballot.
"That begs the question, what have we been doing here all day?"
Ms. Crager (for County Recorder and Supes): "We can acknowledge that a mistake might have been made. The mistake that was not made is allowing Ms. Aguilera to vote twice....Elections are not perfect, your honor. Mistakes are made."
Ms. Gonski now arguing for Intervenors @azdemparty.
The statutes and procedures do not say what the plaintiffs have been trying to make them say.
A master of understatement:
"At the end of the day, plaintiffs can argue all they want about sharpies and laws
If they want this court to allow Ms. Aguilera to cast a new ballot, there are problems with that."
Gonski: Regarding plaintiffs' request that they be present during tabulation: "No plausible argument, or practical argument as to what that would solve."
Even if no other defenses, "we're still left with no idea as to how the plaintiffs' alleged injuries would be plausibly addressed."
BREAKING:
Judge Mahoney: "I will be dismissing the complaint with prejudice. I have heard what I needed to hear today."
And, without taking a breath, Judge Mahoney quickly rules that Plaintiffs were not even close. She will detail later.
It's 5 o'clock everywhere!
Thanks again to the brilliant (and still-married) @tomryanlaw for providing unparalleled coverage of most of today's "frivolous litigation".
Check out more of our previous - and, today's - coverage of Arizona's Sharpiegate: bit.ly/AZlaw1112
Some really excellent questions from @ThomasGalvin & the other Supes at today's meeting about Nov's election!
The 2 page ballot is thanks to the Leg, and it is going to cause many problems (and take longer to tabulate).
Examples: longer lines at printers, voting booths... 1/5
...tabulators, etc.
The 2 page ballot is going to cause a host of other problems. Mail-in voters are going to have to be especially careful not to mix up the pages with a family member living elsewhere in the county (eg filling out ballots together)....
2/5
...Even if they appear to be identical p. 2's, they are coded by precinct, and both would be rejected. (Still not sure whether/how they'd be notified.)
Also, can't forget 1 page, and try to mail it back later.
Vote Center issue: Tabulator reads 1st page, 2nd misreads....
3/5
JOIN US at 2pm as we cover the much-delayed oral arguments in @KariLake's 2022 Election Contest appeal.
The ever-effervescent @tomryanlaw and I will bring you every thrilling moment of the 50 (scheduled) minutes of arguments.
As always, we encourage you to follow along with us. Neither of us traveled to Tucson for today's festivities, so we're depending on this YouTube link:
We get to this point from a long and winding road.
Lake fought the transfer of her appeal to the Tucson-based Division 2 (of the Ct of Appeals). But, it got briefed and the 3-judge panel took it under advisement back in November. (Noone had asked for oral argument.)
-PW
LIVE NOW: The Arizona Supreme Court is about to hear oral arguments in the case to decide whether Arizona's Civil War-era total ABORTION BAN is back in effect, or whether the 2022-passed 15-week ban superseded it (despite Leg's attempts to both regulate and keep the total ban).
Welp, PW is off today. So you are stuck with me, your intrepid court watcher, Tom Ryan. Let's get started. This hearing has been going on for 1 hour now. Logged in just in time to hear Mr. Blehm argue with Judge Hannah. It did not go well. TR
Kari Lake is NOT in the courtroom even though she is the Plaintiff. Wendy Rogers is in the galley though. Judge Hannah is now correcting Blehm on who can verify signatures on Petitions and Initiatives. TR
Not sure who this witness is. She's doing her best to understand and answer Blehm's questions about different forms of public signatures. Hannah asks Blehm to move on. TR
Well, goooooood afternoon Arizona! For all you out there keeping score on all the butt kicking going on in the MAGA litigation realm, I've got a little refresher course for you to read before we get started in Judge Tuchi's Court on the Alan "the Dersh" Dershowitz OSC hearing. TR
The hardworking journos at AZ LAW have put together this handy-dandy Sanctions Scorecard for your ease of reference. It's a lovely, hop, skip and a sneeze down Memory Lane for who is getting slapped with sanctions in MAGA land. TR arizonaslaw.blogspot.com/search?q=Tuchi
Today there is a hearing before U.S. Dist. of Ariz Judge Tuchi that begins today at 3 p.m. to determine whether Dershowitz should ALSO be held liable for sanctions that Judge Tuchi has already determined he should apply for the in court misrepresentations. TR
Of course, it *should* go without saying the "independent state legislature" theory does NOT even purport to give them the right to pass laws w/o the Governor.
Rather, it claims the COURTS cannot review/overrule the Leg in area of elections. You *still* need a valid law. PW