2016 Postmortem

silvershadow

(10,336 posts) Tue Apr 26, 2016, 03:04 AM Apr 2016

Judge: AZ presidential preference vote can be challenged

PHOENIX — A judge on Monday ruled it’s legal to challenge last month’s presidential preference election.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David Gass said it remains to be seen whether the Tucson man, John Brakey, contesting the election — and seeking to void the results — can prove his case that the things that went wrong merit voiding the vote.

During the first day of hearings Monday, Assistant Attorney General James Driscoll Maceachron, defending Secretary of State Michele Reagan, told the judge that Arizona law allows someone to contest the outcome of a political primaries between candidates. Ditto, he said, if the issue is something like an initiative or bond election.

But he said there is no authority to challenge the state’s presidential preference election, which is neither a primary in the traditional sense nor a ballot measure.

http://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/judge-az-presidential-preference-vote-can-be-challenged/article_8cd8fa0b-e5d4-523d-8918-ca7bb217dee9.html

Poll: DO you agree with this decision?

5 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	5 (100%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge: AZ presidential preference vote can be challenged (Original Post) silvershadow Apr 2016 OP

Your op says it can be challenged Unicorn Apr 2016 #1

Absolutely! That's what the judicial system is for--to seek MADem Apr 2016 #2

Unicorn

(424 posts)

1. Your op says it can be challenged

Reply to silvershadow (Original post)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 03:10 AM

Apr 2016

then you post:

"But he said there is no authority to challenge the state’s presidential preference election, which is neither a primary in the traditional sense nor a ballot measure. "

that means it's impossible to vote for if we agree - the two statements go against each others.

MADem

(135,425 posts)

2. Absolutely! That's what the judicial system is for--to seek

Reply to silvershadow (Original post)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 03:29 AM

Apr 2016

redress of wrongs.

More significant, Post detailed how the electronic “poll books” listed people as being registered in parties different than they said they were registered. She said it wasn’t simply voters being confused, pointing out many of them had county-issued voter registration cards.

“I did not keep track by race, and I should have,” Post told the court.

“But many of them were blacks who were told they were Republicans,” she continued. “And their response was unkind.”

Post said she is convinced the problem was with the county’s records and not with the voters.

Reply to this discussion