|
Hi orly,
One of the reasons we passed all the election laws that we did, is for clarity. It’s so that election officials know clearly what they can and cannot do.
In other words, NO WIGGLE ROOM.
That’s why the case Kari Lake has before the Arizona Supreme Court is so important. Liberties were taken, laws broken, and now we have a verified mess.
This is Senator Wendy Rogers, Chairman of the Elections Committee of the Arizona Senate. I’m fixing our election laws to make the clearer, so Arizona and other states know what is best practice in elections. Help me make this a reality!
Key here is the issue of Runbeck. The Arizona Supreme Court found it must be considered. Uncover DC explains:
“What went largely unnoticed, however, was the Arizona Supreme Court went on to overrule the trial judge on his determinations that Lake needed to prove the outcome of the election would have been different based on a “competent mathematical basis … not simply an untethered assertion of uncertainty.”
That has never been the legal standard in election law at-large. Candidates are not required to conclusively, mathematically prove the election outcome would have been different—an almost impossible legal standard to achieve. Traditionally, candidates only need to prove the election outcome is sufficiently in doubt.” |