Arizona Kraken lawsuit

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 2:20-cv-02321-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/02/20 Page 10 of 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 37. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, to remedy deprivations of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and to contest the election results, and the corollary provisions under the Arizona Constitution. 38. The United States Constitution sets forth the authority to regulate federal elections. With respect to congressional elections, the Constitution provides: 39. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4 (“Elections Clause”). 40. With respect to the appointment of presidential electors, the Constitution provides: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1 (“Electors Clause”). 41. None of Defendants is a “Legislature” as required under the Elections Clause or Electors Clause to set the rules governing elections. The Legislature is “‘the representative body which ma[kes] the laws of the people.’” Smiley, 285 U.S. 365. Regulations of congressional and presidential elections, thus, “must be in accordance with the method which the state has prescribed for legislative enactments.” Id. at 367; see also Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2668 (U.S. 2015). 42. While the Elections Clause "was not adopted to diminish a State's authority to determine its own lawmaking processes," Ariz. State Legislature, 135 S. Ct. at 2677, it does hold states accountable to their chosen processes when it comes to regulating federal elections, id. at 2668. "A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question." Bush, 531 U.S. at 113 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring); Smiley, 285 U.S. at 365. - 10 -
Case 2:20-cv-02321-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/02/20 Page 11 of 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43. Secretary Hobbs certified the Presidential Election results on November 30, 2020. The Presidential election results in Arizona show a difference of 10,457 “tallied” votes in favor of former Vice-President Joe Biden over President Trump. 44. The specific factual allegations of fraud and statutory and constitutional violations are set forth in greater detail below. Section I describes specific violations of Arizona law. Section II provides expert witness testimony quantifying the number of illegal votes due to distinct categories of voting fraud and other unlawful conduct. Section III provides fact and expert witness testimony, as well as summaries of other publicly available evidence (including judicial and administrative proceedings) regarding Dominion voting systems’ voting fraud in Arizona during the 2020 General Election, the security flaws that allow election workers, or even hostile foreign actors, to manipulate Arizona election results, and includes a summary of information relating to the motive and opportunity, and a pattern of behavior to prove that Dominion and its executives demonstrating that Dominion had the specific intent to interfere, and change the results of, the 2020 General Election. 45. Based upon all the allegations of fraud, statutory violations, and other misconduct, as stated herein and in the attached affidavits, it is necessary to enjoin the certification of the election results and invalidate the election results... I. VIOLATIONS OF ARIZONA ELECTION LAW A. Arizona Election Law 46. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-550(A), the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall compare the signatures on the early ballot affidavit with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record. If the signature is inconsistent, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the voter and allow the voter to correct or confirm the inconsistent signature. 47. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-625, the officer in charge of elections shall ensure that electronic data from and electronic or digital images of ballots are protected from physical and electronic access, including unauthorized copying or transfer, and that all - 11 -
Page 1 and 2: Case 2:20-cv-02321-DJH Document 1 F
Page 9: Case 2:20-cv-02321-DJH Document 1 F
Page 53: Case 2:20-cv-02321-DJH Document 1 F

Arizona Kraken lawsuit

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?