In today's legal news surrounding the State Senate Republicans/Cyber Ninjas recount/audit of Maricopa County's November election:
1) Superior Court Judge Daniel Martin officially dismissed the Arizona Democratic Party's lawsuit challenging the audit/recount. The parties had asked for the dismissal as part of last week's Settlement Agreement. Per the stipulation, if any of the parties allege that the agreement has been breached, they can bring a new action to the courts after giving the other side a chance to fix the alleged breach. The Settlement Agreement can be read here.
2) KJZZ's Ben Giles gave a good breakdown this morning of the intra-AZGOP legal battle regarding an audit and/or a re-vote in the state party elections from January. (Here's the Minute Entry dismissing one of the cases, and our article on the parallel tussle.
3) The Arizona Supreme Court wasted NO TIME in getting rid of the Secret Government Takeover special action filed yesterday. In a unanimous, en banc decision within 48 (business) hours, the Justices treated the effort to invalidate 2018, 2019 and 2020 elections as an election contest. Under Arizona law, that had to have been filed within five days of the official canvass of (each) election.
Saying that "Although our courts have recognized that electors may have an implied private right of action to challenge voting machines’ compliance with applicable statutory requirements in certain limited circumstances, nothing in the statutes Petitioners cite grants them a private right of action to remove office holders and sit in their stead."
The Justices also gave "We the People" until Monday to file a motion to keep their identities sealed. Otherwise, the Court will follow its Open Records Policy.
"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet.
I'm interested in the phrase "48 (business) hours" because earlier today, in a completely unrelated matter, I had to explain to someone that "24 business hours" likely was intended to refer to the same time one business day later, as opposed to 3 business days later (at 8 hours apiece). And sure enough here, based on when the case was filed, you certainly aren't saying it was within 6 8-hour days. It's an interesting idiom.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a copy of the signed order? Did the judge write-in 'without prejudice" notwithstanding the typewritten text, OR does "With Prejudice" have a special meaning in Arizona?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it "depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is" ?
You should get a copy of what the judge actually signed, or an explanation for a trial attorney in Arizona.