Read on Twitter
Thanks for GREAT coverage of this unreal "Sharpiegate 2: The Disaster" trial. https://twitter.com/tomryanlaw/status/1329916768572166144
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 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.
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
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.
"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."
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."
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: "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.)
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...
"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.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00446.htm
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00446.htm
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.
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?"
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.
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."
"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."
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!
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".
