GOP Voter Intimidation Attempt Defeated In Court

0
419

An effort in Nevada to substantially expand what election observers can do has essentially failed. “The Plaintiffs will be permitted to observe during the processing and counting
of ballots and in accordance with Nevada law and regulations and Washoe county’s existing
procedures, to the same extent as other eligible observers,” a court document states — meaning there’s no apparent expansion to what’s already allowed for observers.

The original case alleged Nevada authorities to be failing to provide sufficient opportunities for election observers to actually observe. More expansive access for election observers would allow operatives participating in the process in such a capacity “to ensure the integrity of the upcoming elections,” according to the case’s dubious claims. As summarized by Democracy Docket: “Specifically, the plaintiffs [asked] that election observers are present at “every step of the election,” including at drop boxes and voting machines, and that they can inspect ballots to ensure that an election is “handled with transparency, integrity, and is done lawfully,”” — which is wild. That would expand what election observers can do at an apparently dramatic rate.

Interests on the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ sides agreed to the arrangement outlined in the aforementioned court filing, drawing the case to an end. In other words, it doesn’t appear to have been a judge’s decision stopping the case, although previous judicial decision-making did, in fact, make the case clearly set for potential failure: in court, the plaintiffs’ push for a temporary restraining order failed with a finding that those responsible for the case didn’t meet “their burden to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims,” partly because they “presented no evidence, only unsworn allegations and concerns,” as the court put it.

Another recent court victory for those standing for democracy emerged in Arizona: Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen dismissed a GOP-backed lawsuit that sought to essentially dismantle the state’s absentee voting system. The case, brought by the state GOP and its extremist chairwoman, Kelli Ward, sought measures apparently including a block on the usage of no-excuse mail-in voting for Arizona’s midterm elections later this year. “It is the only question before the Court: Is the Arizona legislature prohibited by the Arizona Constitution from enacting voting laws that include no-excuse mail-in voting? The answer is no,” the judge said in his ruling, which was dated Monday. The original case alleged that no-excuse mail-in voting violated the state Constitution in Arizona.

Those on Trump’s side and the side of other opponents to democracy have repeatedly and consistently alleged mail-in voting to be especially fraught with the threat of fraud. There’s no real-world evidence for the notion that there’s a threat of widespread fraud in U.S. elections. A recent review by the federal entity called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) concluded there’s no evidence of the exploitation of flaws in Dominion-brand elections equipment, apparently meaning that there’s no evidence of perceptible issues with the equipment becoming a method for imaginary election-meddlers to change election outcomes.

Despite issues The Washington Post characterized in part as “highly technical,” systematic fraud evidence isn’t there — “We have no evidence that these vulnerabilities have been exploited and no evidence that they have affected any election results… Of note, states’ standard election security procedures would detect exploitation of these vulnerabilities and in many cases would prevent attempts entirely. This makes it very unlikely that these vulnerabilities could affect an election,” Brandon Wales, CISA’s executive director, explained.