Judge David Gass ruled against Plaintiff John Brakey of AUDIT-AZ in his quest to get the Secretary of State to
decertify the Arizona Presidential Primary and to ultimately redo the Arizona Presidential Primary at a later date.
AUDIT-AZ, Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections was founded in 2004 and since then has worked to investigate, expose and eliminate problems in the Arizona election system including inadequate laws, failure of elections personnel to follow those laws, and lack of legal consequences for those who disobey the laws designed to protect our elections.
As this court case confirms, there is no effective legal means for challenging a suspicious election in Arizona. AUDIT-AZ made an argument based on Arizona and U.S. Constitutional laws, which are explicit in providing for fair, verifiable elections. Judge Gass’s ruling contains no mention of applicable constitutional laws in his eighteen-page ruling that was purported to have been composed within the period between 6:00 PM last night and 8:00 AM this morning.
If the constitutional law is ignored, one state statute ensures that it is next to impossible to challenge an election. As Attorney Bill Risner points out in his statement of facts (which was presented as Exhibit 5):
II. Only One Statute Permits Election Contests
A.R.S. §16-673 is the one statute that explains how a state election might be challenged.
The subsequent section, A.R.S. § 16-674, requires county election contests to be “on the same
grounds and in the same manner as contests of” state elections.
A.R.S. § 16-673 requires that an election contest must be filed within five days after
completion of the canvass and must allege the particulars of how they cheated and that the result
would be different if they had not cheated.
§ 16-673. Statement of contest; verification; filing
A. The elector contesting a state election shall, within five days after
completion of the canvass of the election and declaration of the result
thereof by the secretary of state or by the governor, file in the court in
which the contest is commenced a statement in writing setting forth:
4. The particular grounds of the contest.
If an elector files an election contest on the 6th day, its too late, regardless of the proof,
according to the plain language of that statute.
So AUDIT-AZ gathered as much evidence as was possible in this five day window and, with the evidence for systemic fraud in Arizona elections, should have prevailed in at least getting a hand-count audit of a few key precincts, if not a completely new election for the Presidential Primary in Arizona.
As the judgment indicates, AUDIT-AZ used the correct and proper means to make a timely challenge to the 2016 Presidential Primary Election with a proper complaint.
All of this plan became unravelled when the Judge Gass sustained the Defendants’ objections over evidence demonstrating Arizona’s systemically flawed elections system. In other words, the judge barred the Plaintiff from informing the court of the systemic problems that led to the Presidential Primary disaster in the first place.
As Brakey summarizes, “If there was ever an opportunity to demonstrate that it’s impossible to challenge an election in Arizona, this was it.” He refers to this recent disastrous Presidential Primary Election in Arizona that involved altered registrations, severely reduced polling locations and illegal/improper audits of electronic vote tabulations.
The Brakey case was the only case that directly challenged the results of the March 22nd election. A pending case filed by the Democratic National Committee seeks to address only some of the issues in the primary election before the November general election. But Arizona has two more elections before November: the May 17 Special Election and the August 30 Primary Election (for statewide offices and federal offices other than the presidency). It is unknown if the DNC case will be resolved favorably and in time for either of these elections.
The U.S. Department of Justice has also announced it will be investigating the Arizona primary election. The status of that investigation is unknown.
“This case proves the point that election contest laws must be changed. When a contest can’t be successful even with such overwhelming evidence, something is very wrong,” said Brakey. “This isn’t a setback, but only proves what our attorney Bill Risner said in 2012 in his statement of facts on the RTA case.”
Page seven of Risner’s statement says, in part, “Our election computer system has quite simply been built to cheat and, at least for that goal, it has succeeded.”
Brakey continued, “(t)he voters deserve to have someone on their side, exposing the malfeasance in our elections systems. We were hoping the court would order the state government to do its job and run fair and accurate elections. Until the government is working to protect the interests of the people, what else is there to do but keep up the fight?”
And what of the 150,000 plus voters who were disenfranchised as a result of reduced polling locations? According to Judge Gass, the lack of polling locations is not “a proper subject in an election challenge”.
One of the most erroneous statements in Gass’s judgment was his claim that the Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the outcome of the election would have changed without all the problems in this election. The Plaintiffs, however, shown that in Arizona’s Congressional District 6, only 300 votes were needed to add an additional delegate to Bernie Sanders’ total.
AUDIT-AZ contends that the 150,000 plus voters denied suffrage, the 20,000 provisional ballots left uncounted and the shenanigans often found in the electronic vote-by-mail tallies were enough to affect the outcome of the election, especially in the number of delegates provided to each candidate.
Why such disregard for the constitutional provisions to ensure verifiable, transparent elections?
We may never know, but more people are starting to understand the extent of election fraud throughout the country.
AUDIT-AZ receives no government, corporate, or grant funding and depends on donations from individuals to support their work.
Learn more at http://electionnightmares.com and please consider helping us offset the costs we have yet to meet for this case. Feel free to contact us for more information.
Featured Excerpts from List of Plaintiff’s Exhibits:
13 – “Karl Rove& #39’s Electronic Empire Of Fraud” by Jim March
16 – “The Curious Business of William E Doyle” by J.T. Waldron
17 – “William E. Doyle, the Hidden De Facto Statewide Election Director” by John Brakey
24 – Pima County Declaration by Jim March
27 – Security Breach in Pima County Elections, video links
31 – “Ballot Box Breakdowns” Phoenix New Times