The whole point of the appeal won by the Libertarian party was that courts do have jurisdiction to issue orders to ensure fair, transparent elections when the legislative branch and the executive branch fail to do so. In an obvious stall tactic, Pima County decided to make the same arguments that were lost in the appellate court decision.
“You don’t have subject matter jurisdiction for that” argued Pima County’s private attorney Ronna Fickbohm in reference to ballot scans, a remedy proposed by the Libertarian party. Currently practiced in Humbolt County, California, ballot scanning is the measure making optical scans of the ballots available for public perusal. Fickbohm continued to argue against the appellate court decision by insisting that proposed remedies can only be handled by the legislature. The Libertarian party already established the failure of the legislative branch to offer a timely remedy and won the appeal based on that argument.
Additional points made by Pima County seemed to involve technicalities where none really existed. Ronna Fickbohm makes the argument that the plaintiff doesn’t “say there’s an ongoing problem of election fraud in the future.” The judge may not appreciate this argument given the fact that removing Pima County’s ability to cheat was the basic, implicit underpinning of the case for prospective relief.
Finally, Pima County attempted to rewrite recent history by suggesting that previous statements recorded in their last records trial are taken out of context and never meant to indicate that their software system was a security issue.
Here is Pima County Attorney Chris Straub (replaced by the pricier private counsel, Ronna Fickbohm) clearly making the argument on behalf of the plaintiff. You can decide whether it’s taken out of context:
Here is today’s entire hearing:
Video shot and edited by John Brakey