Election 2022 Results

Bradskii said:

I must admit being puzzled by that. I can see someone who is front wanting to claim victory, but I can't understand someone in arrears by just 550 votes conceding defeat with a recount to come.

Click to expand...

It's mostly just being realistic. The possibility that a recount changes the outcome is extremely small. The times a recount with a difference even approaching that big changed the outcome, there was reason to believe that there were votes that were improperly counted. Like with Franken's win after a recount, they were arguing that a number of votes were improperly thrown out and that could change the outcome.

Besides, if by some miracle the recount ends up changing the result, Frisch's concession doesn't actually mean anything. It's not like by conceding, he's handing the win to Bobert. What matters is the votes. If the vote count changes who got the most votes, then the winner changes.

wing2000 said:

Facing two lawsuits...with a response due tomorrow, Cochise County Board of Supervisors today voted to hire a lawyer- Bryan Blehm (who has yet to consent)...the same lawyer who represented the Cyber Ninjas. This came after the county attorney refused to defend the board after they ignored his legal advice by refusing to certify the county vote on Monday. Additionally, it's likely Cochise county citizens will be left paying the legal cost...

Cochise supervisors, facing 2 lawsuits, plan to hire attorney even though no one got his OK

With two lawsuits to defend, Cochise County supervisors agree to hire attorney but no one had talked to him prior to agreement.

www.azcentral.com

Click to expand...

"After a short hearing on Thursday afternoon, Pima County Superior Court Judge Casey F. McGinley, who presided over the Cochise case, noted that state law requires the supervisors to certify the election. He gave them three hours – until 5 p.m. Thursday − to get it done.

“They will follow the court’s order and if they don’t then we will go from there,” he said.

Apparently preferring not to become a guest in their own jail, the supervisors certified the election 90 minutes later."

Aldebaran said:

If they face charges for not certifying, then they would be forced to certify under duress. Not very democratic.

Click to expand...

It's the law.

...meanwhile in a Phoenix court room (pay up election deniers!):

In Maricopa County, a federal court judge awarded sanctions in a frivolous lawsuit brought earlier this year by Kari Lake and Mark Finchem.
“Imposing sanctions in this case is not to ignore the importance of putting in place procedures to ensure that our elections are secure and reliable,” U.S. District Court John J. Tuchi wrote. “It is to make clear that the court will not condone litigants ignoring the steps that Arizona has already taken toward this end and furthering false narratives that baselessly undermine public trust at a time of increasing disinformation about, and distrust in, the democratic process.”

......
On Thursday, Tuchi followed up by granting Maricopa County’s request for sanctions. It’ll be up to Lake’s and Finchem’s attorneys to pay the county’s legal bill because they signed the papers “which forced Defendants and their counsel to spend time and resources defending this frivolous lawsuit rather than preparing for the elections over which Plaintiffs’ claims baselessly kicked up a cloud of dust.”

“In sum,” Tuchi noted, in his 30-page ruling, “Plaintiffs lacked an adequate factual or legal basis to support the wide ranging constitutional claims they raised or the extraordinary relief they requested. Plaintiffs filled the gaps between their factual assertions, claimed injuries, and requested relief with false, misleading, and speculative allegations.”

HARK! said:

Colorado begins mandatory recount with Lauren Boebert leading by 550 votes​

Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert has declared victory and Democrat Adam Frisch has conceded defeat, but it won’t be official until after the recount.

Colorado begins mandatory recount with Lauren Boebert leading by 550 votes

Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert has declared victory and Democrat Adam Frisch has conceded defeat, but it won’t be official until after the recount.

www.washingtontimes.com

Click to expand...

...wining by just 550 votes in Western (rural) Colorado...what does that say about a candidate like Boebert?

Aldebaran said:

So were the Jim Crow regulations.

Click to expand...

You've just suggested that anyone can break any law at any time.
'Hey, you can't just dump that rubbish in the street. It's not allowed.'
'Why not?'
'It's the law.'
'So were Jim Crow regulations'.

Aldebaran said:

People protest laws all the time. Anyone who's been watching the news the past few years knows that very well by now. The protesters even like to proclaim, "THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!" as they do it.
Maybe democracy only applies to certain people of a certain political persuasion.

Click to expand...

It should only apply to those who vote. Or at least, only protesting and complaining about democratically formulated laws should be available to those who vote. And they should obey the laws until such time that people they vote for can change them.

More reaction to the sanctions imposed on the attorneys representing Kari Lake and Mark Finchem for their "frivolous lawsuit". IMO, more judges should follow suit when ruling on lawsuits without any legal merit.

Bill Gates, county Board of Supervisors chair, said in a statement the sanctions were a "win for the rule of law" and that they will serve as a consequence for those who file baseless and meritless lawsuits.

There are "too many examples in recent years of attorneys trying to weaponize the court for political purposes," he said. "It is wrong, it is unethical, and these attorneys must be held accountable if we are to protect our democratic republic."

Court records show the out-of-state attorneys used by Lake and Finchem include Alan Dershowitz, an internationally famous lawyer, author and Harvard Law School professor; three lawyers from Parker Daniels Kibort LLC, in Minnesota: Andrew Parker, Jesse Kibort and Joseph Pull; and Kurt Olsen, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who helped with a lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results that was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Neither the attorneys nor Lake and Finchem returned messages seeking comment for this article.

..

Lake and Finchem's lawsuit was filed as Republican lawmakers failed to pass the sort of significant election-procedure changes they sought during this year's legislative session. The complaint echoed conspiracy theories about Dominion Voting Systems and vote-tabulating machines put forth by former President Donald Trump and his legal team after he lost the presidential election in 2020 to President Joe Biden.

The plaintiffs made specific falsehoods in the lawsuit that Tuchi found worthy of sanctions.

They alleged that Arizona voters don't vote with paper ballots, but that's "simply false," Tuchi wrote.

Aldebaran said:

People protest laws all the time.

Click to expand...

And they get in trouble for it - fines, jail time, etc. Happened to the people who protested the Jim Crow laws too. Civil disobedience may be celebrated after the fact when used to protest unjust laws, but as long as the laws are on the book, it also means taking your lumps.

And the comparison of the law requiring the county supervisors to certify the election with Jim Crow is, frankly, insulting.

Aldebaran said:

People protest laws all the time. Anyone who's been watching the news the past few years knows that very well by now. The protesters even like to proclaim, "THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!" as they do it.
Maybe democracy only applies to certain people of a certain political persuasion.

Click to expand...

They are not protesting the law, but the results of the democratic process. Why do you think it is undemocratic for a small minority to be prevented to deny the outcome of the election because it didn't go their way?

Aldebaran said:

It's certainly within the process to challenge a result if there are problems detected within the process. If an election supervisor is coerced into certifying results that they themselves noticed inaccuracies, malfunctions, or inconsistencies in the process, then what's the point of having a supervisor at all if what they supervised is ignored and they're forced with threat of jail time to decide the results were certifiable?

Click to expand...

If the problem detected was that they lost, then there is no process for that. If real problems were detected, then they can and should challenge - but after the challenge fails, they are required to certify.

Aldebaran said:

It's certainly within the process to challenge a result if there are problems detected within the process. If an election supervisor is coerced into certifying results that they themselves noticed inaccuracies, malfunctions, or inconsistencies in the process, then what's the point of having a supervisor at all if what they supervised is ignored and they're forced with threat of jail time to decide the results were certifiable?

Click to expand...

They didn't notice inaccuracies. They just didn't like losing.