- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
Plaintiff asserts again that the harm is "preventing fraud". Says that the audit may turn up nothing, but it may turn up something.
(...I could come up with a better argument for harm in my sleep. Here, watch: the Arizona Republican Party is harmed in a hand-count audit by precinct not being ordered, since candidates that they fielded for election in certain elections are denied election wins under circumstances-- suspicious or not-- that are less likely to be detected in a voting center-centered audit versus a precinct-based audit, which is state law and is not contradicted by the SoS' guidelines. Defense argues that this has nothing to do with fine mathematics, I disagree and she can suck a big one for being pointlessly petty.)
Either the case is tougher in AZ or the AZ GOP is not sending their best. Both are likely true.
(...I could come up with a better argument for harm in my sleep. Here, watch: the Arizona Republican Party is harmed in a hand-count audit by precinct not being ordered, since candidates that they fielded for election in certain elections are denied election wins under circumstances-- suspicious or not-- that are less likely to be detected in a voting center-centered audit versus a precinct-based audit, which is state law and is not contradicted by the SoS' guidelines. Defense argues that this has nothing to do with fine mathematics, I disagree and she can suck a big one for being pointlessly petty.)
Either the case is tougher in AZ or the AZ GOP is not sending their best. Both are likely true.
Last edited: