What can the Arizona Attorney General actually do about the bombshell Election Day report?

If the people aren’t in the streets protesting in large mass, nothing will happen. They need to block interstates, roadways and etc. Make their presence and numbers known.

Then reality set in and I realize nothing will happen. Evidently, it hasn’t gotten bad enough yet.

quote:

---

I don’t know specifically, but I don’t know of any law in any state or jurisdiction that allows elections to be “re done” , especially after they are certified by the relevant authority (Sec of State, etc). Could be wrong though I doubt we have any AZ lawyers on here who can answer that with specificity.

---

There have been some cases where judges have voided the results of local elections because of significant irregularities or fraud so it can be done if the Arizona AG can present a strong enough case and a judge has the spine to do it. Also Cochise and Maricopa Counties have delayed certification of their results until after the date they have to respond to the AG. Could the AG's Office get an injunction to keep them from certifying if the AG thinks there is enough proof to proceed?

You've got 2 things going on - (1) who becomes the next governor; and (2) if there is shady shite that happened, what happens to the people who did the shady.

1- Regarding who becomes governor: My understanding of the AZ Law is that the election MUST be certified by AG and the Secretary of State. So the AG may refuse to certify the election, which apparently the AG has already done. So, even assuming that Katie Hobbs has more "votes" (i.e. ballots) in her favor in the horse race, she is not the winner and cannot legally become governor of Arizona. I do not know if the law will require that (1) they hold another election or (2) require an audit or recount that would permit the AG to certify the results - but there is no governor elect at the moment. I don't know what the statute says about how they select a new governor if the result isn't certified. Both Hobbs and Lake should be entitled to a declaratory judgment from the Court if the law is unclear on what happens if the election cannot be certified, but I have a feeling that with respect to the "who becomes governor and how" the statute probably spells out what to do next.

2- If shady shite happened If this Bill Gaetz guy (which WTF on that name) or others were engaged in election frickery, such as deliberately sabotaging the machines, or if 3rd parties (like democrats or RINOs or Cindy McCain) manipulated the machines, the AG could open a criminal investigation. Legislatures don't prosecute people, prosecutors do. Interestingly, I'm not sure what happened in their AG race but if Hamedeh got elected Gaetz needs to be nervous about being prosecuted.

Otherwise, if this can be blamed on just simple, typical government stupid, nothing will happen. It's impossible to fire people who work for the government, or to arrest them for laziness, which is why people who work for the government are lazy. There's no consequences for screwing up. It's even worse when the lazy person is elected. I think the Maricopa elections idiots are elected. If they're appointed - and Lake wins, she can fire their dumbasses. Stupid is a defense for government.

quote:

---

TomJoadGhost

---

Look another one!

Bunch of Antifa soy boy cucks can burn down billions of property all over the US including in D.C. - WTF can't the other side do the same to eliminate all the CORRUPTION?

quote:

---

1- Regarding who becomes governor: My understanding of the AZ Law is that the election MUST be certified by AG and the Secretary of State. So the AG may refuse to certify the election, which apparently the AG has already done. So, even assuming that Katie Hobbs has more "votes" (i.e. ballots) in her favor in the horse race, she is not the winner and cannot legally become governor of Arizona. I do not know if the law will require that (1) they hold another election or (2) require an audit or recount that would permit the AG to certify the results - but there is no governor elect at the moment. I don't know what the statute says about how they select a new governor if the result isn't certified. Both Hobbs and Lake should be entitled to a declaratory judgment from the Court if the law is unclear on what happens if the election cannot be certified, but I have a feeling that with respect to the "who becomes governor and how" the statute probably spells out what to do next.

---

I just looked into it. Apparently the results of an election in Arizona can be contested.

quote:

---

A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:

1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.

2. That the person whose right to the office is contested was not at the time of the election eligible to the office.

3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.

4. On account of illegal votes.

5. That by reason of erroneous count of votes the person declared elected or the initiative or referred measure, or proposal to amend the constitution, or other question or proposal submitted, which has been declared carried, did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for the office or a sufficient number of votes to carry the measure, amendment, question or proposal.

---

LINK

quote:

---

A. In any contest brought under the provisions of section 16-672 or 16-674, upon the filing of the answer, or if no answer is filed, upon the expiration of the time specified in the summons, the court shall set a time for the hearing of the contest, not later than ten days after the date on which the statement of contest was filed, which may be continued for not to exceed five days for good cause shown.

B. The court shall continue in session to hear and determine all issues arising in contested elections. After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, and within five days after the submission thereof, the court shall file its findings and immediately thereafter shall pronounce judgment, either confirming or annulling and setting aside the election.

C. If in an election contest it appears that a person other than the contestee has the highest number of legal votes, the court shall declare that person elected and that the certificate of election of the person whose office is contested is of no further legal force or effect.

---

LINK

Damn if I am reading that right, the courts have the power to throw out the election results. Again if I am reading the law right. If the AG or Lake or Masters challenge the election results in court (and assuming the judge is objective and is not a party hack) they would only have to prove that misconduct occurred, but they would not have to prove that the misconduct affected the vote total.

quote:

---

bombshell Election Day report


Long lines is a bombshell report?

---

No but > 50% of tabulation machines malfunctioning is a bombshell (if true). Also mixing untabulated ballots in with ballots that have been tabulated is a bombshell (if true).

quote:

---

Long lines is a bombshell report?

---

Marc Elias is shitting himself trying to get out in front of this. I would say this is a bombshell in itself.

Do revote in counties that had printer issues. But those not stupid can see this was their plan all along, they figured that the end game is to have bad vote pages that they could then adjudicate or throw out so they invented printer issues to do just that.

quote:

---

Long lines is a bombshell report?

---

So you think this was what was afoul?