 |
| Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 2.0 |
‘The best way forward is to provide transparency and ease the voters’ concerns,’ Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona Chair Merissa Hamilton told The Federalist.
Arizona’s Democrat elections chief is illegally withholding the identities of approximately 218,000 registered voters on the state’s voter rolls who lack documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), a lawsuit filed Wednesday alleges.
Brought by the Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona (SCFA) against Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and the Arizona Department of State, the legal challenge “seeks to restore public trust in [Arionza’s] electoral system by ensuring transparency about the Defendants’ failures to ensure that registered voters have provided DPOC, as required by law.” The group is represented by America First Legal and a law firm spearheaded by former Arizona Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wright.
The lawsuit addresses an issue that first came to light last month, in which Arizona election officials announced they discovered approximately 98,000 registered “full-ballot” voters who have not provided documentary proof of citizenship required to participate in state and local elections. The error appears to have resulted “from the way the Motor Vehicle Division provides driver’s license information to the state’s voter registration system,” according to Votebeat Arizona.
Fontes said most of the affected voters are registered Republicans, according to the outlet.
In Arizona, voters registering via state registration form must show DPOC to vote in state and local races. Individuals who are unable to provide such documentation are registered as “federal-only” voters and can only cast ballots in federal races. --->READ MORE HERE
‘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. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment