The Arizona Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would be ruling against a ballot initiative that would overturn new voter integrity laws that were passed by the state. The court, in a unanimous ruling, found there weren’t enough valid signatures on the submitted petition in order to get the initiative placed on the ballot that would then overturn the recently passed election reform laws. And guess who was responsible for helping to fund this little quest to undo protections put in place for the preservation of our election system?
If you guessed vile commie billionaire George Soros, well, you’d be right on the money. Unfortunately for you, this is not a game show and I have no prizes to hand out. Better luck next time, right?
The initiative, according to Newsmax, fell short of the required 237,654 signatures required to get it on the ballot in November by a total of 1,458. According to information gleaned from Ballotpedia, the group known as the Arizonans For Free and Fair Elections had originally turned in 475,290 signatures. Joseph Mikitish, a judge in Maricopa County, ruled that a whopping 75,000 of those signatures were disqualified after taking time to review challenges that were made, though he did allow the measure to go forward and be put on the ballot.
Judge Mikitish ended up reversing that position on Aug. 26 after the Arizona Supreme Court requested that he offer his reasoning for disqualifying the signatures. The higher court went on to affirm that the reversal and the ballot initiative had died, according to information from Newsmax.
“In reversing itself today, the trial court has done something never done before in Arizona initiative practice and which is not authorized by statute,” lawyers for Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections went on to say in a statement hot on the heels of the ruling. “It has allowed initiative challengers to strike individual signatures under (the law), for any reason, and allowed them to benefit from the invalidity rate calculated by the County Recorders’ random sample that the challengers did not include in this lawsuit.”
Here’s more information from the report: Read more