XPost: misc.legal, alt.fraud, alt.politics.trump   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   From: yourdime@outlook.com   
      
   ‘What the AZ Supreme Court just affirmed is that as long as you can   
   conceal your cheating long enough, you can fraud your way onto the   
   ballot.’   
      
   On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that votes cast for a pro-   
   ranked-choice voting constitutional amendment in the 2024 election will   
   count — even though nearly 38,000 signatures supporting the amendment   
   proposal were duplicates.   
      
   In its decision, the Grand Canyon State’s high court rejected a   
   challenge seeking to have votes cast for Proposition 140 voided after a   
   lower court special master disclosed that 37,657 pairs of signatures   
   gathered in support of the measure were duplicates. As previously   
   argued by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC), the finding “place   
   [s] Proposition 140 thousands of signatures under the constitutionally   
   required signature threshold to qualify for the [November] ballot.”   
      
   Prop 140 would amend the Arizona Constitution by implementing an open   
   primary system in which candidates of all parties run in the same   
   primary. It also paves the way for the state to potentially adopt   
   ranked-choice voting (RCV) for general elections.   
      
   Under an RCV system, voters are asked to rank candidates of all parties   
   in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent   
   of first-choice votes in the first round of voting, the last-place   
   finisher is eliminated, and his votes are reallocated to the voter’s   
   second-choice candidate. This process continues until one candidate   
   receives a majority of votes.   
      
   As The Federalist previously reported, the Arizona Supreme Court   
   allowed a signature challenge to Prop 140 filed by several residents to   
   move forward on Aug. 23. The high court stated that if it were   
   determined that enough invalid signatures existed to disqualify the   
   initiative from appearing on the November ballot, the trial court   
   “should issue an injunction precluding any votes for the measure from   
   being counted,” as the state had already started printing ballots. The   
   court issued a subsequent ruling on Sept. 16 vacating that statement   
   and permitting the initiative’s supporters to make their arguments in   
   the trial court that Arizona courts lack jurisdiction to remedy such a   
   solution.   
      
   The following day, court-appointed Special Master and retired Arizona   
   Superior Court Judge Christopher Skelly delivered his report to the   
   Maricopa County Superior Court revealing Prop 140’s 38,000 pairs of   
   duplicate signatures.   
      
   Despite these findings calling into question the measure’s eligibility   
   to appear on the state’s November ballot, Maricopa Judge Frank   
   Moskowitz ruled on Sept. 19 that votes cast for the measure would   
   count. As summarized by AZ Free News, the judge “claimed that the   
   confirmation of duplicated, invalid signatures was ‘moot’” because the   
   state had already begun printing ballots for the election and that the   
   courts lacked statutory authority to issue such an order.   
      
   “That is not a sufficient basis for this Court to grant such a remedy,   
   especially given the injunction allowable under (the law), the statute   
   upon which Plaintiffs initially brought this action, does not include   
   enjoining the canvassing of votes,” Moskowitz wrote. “Perhaps the   
   absence of such express authority in statute is because the Legislature   
   never intended for initiative challenges to go past the ballot printing   
   deadline.”   
      
   Plaintiffs appealed the decision, which was subsequently upheld by the   
   Arizona Supreme Court on Friday. While the high court did not   
   rationalize its ruling, Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer noted in the   
   order that “[a]n opinion explaining the Court’s reasons will follow in   
   due course.”   
      
   In a statement responding to Friday’s decision, AZFEC President Scot   
   Mussi said he was “disappointed” in the high court’s final ruling and   
   argued that “the special interest groups attempting to hijack Arizona’s   
   elections systems lacked the minimum number to qualify for the ballot   
   to even be considered by voters in November.”   
      
   “The committee behind the measure was aware of the duplicates, yet they   
   obstructed and delayed the review of the duplicate signatures for over   
   a month,” Mussi said.   
      
   Other conservatives expressed concern about the precedent the Arizona   
   Supreme Court may have created by allowing an initiative with a vast   
   number of duplicate signatures to be considered by voters.   
      
   “What the AZ Supreme Court just affirmed is that as long as you can   
   conceal your cheating long enough, you can fraud your way onto the   
   ballot,” Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona Chair Merissa   
   Hamilton wrote on X.   
      
   Speaking of the court’s decision, Jordan Kittleson, the policy director   
   for the America First Policy Institute’s Center for Election Integrity,   
   warned about the dangers associated with ranked-choice voting. In a   
   statement to The Federalist, he said that RCV “throws one person, one   
   vote, counted one time totally out the window.”   
      
   RCV “manufactures confusion with voters, sews chaos into the tabulation   
   process, and disenfranchises voters at an alarming rate,” Kittleson   
   said. “I’m confident that Arizonans will reject Prop 140 and vote ‘No’   
   on RCV.”   
      
   https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/04/arizona-supreme-court-green-   
   lights-ranked-choice-voting-ballot-initiative-riddled-with-duplicate-   
   signatures/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)