Alex Kolodin after the court hearing in Mohave County.

brief on today's court case from AZGOP vs Hobbs
6-3-2022
1pm
Court room 201
Judge Jentzen
Brief:
After wasting time responding to the defense about whether the case was legitimate due to the Dems lying about being served and questioning the wording of the Preliminary Injunction, we finally got to business.
After Attorney Kolodin explained the case history about the popularity of no-excuse mail-in voting, security with elections, and how overall the voting laws had not changed much since 1891, except for a constant early ballot expansion to more days and more hours prior to election day.
Kolodin explained how the legislature defines security in voting and how the framers of the Constitution took secrecy very seriously. Making certain “secrecy in voting was preserved”. Kolodin briefed on how his argument is based on a violation of the Constitution, and how the legislature is not to change the constitution, only the people have the power through referendum.
Kolodin noted how there are many contradictions to existing voting laws, for example it is against the law to take a picture of your ballot in the voting booth but it is not against the law to take a picture of your ballot from home, and even post it all over Facebook.
In previous cases it had been ruled that having to travel to ones own polling place DOES NOT exceed the normal burdens of voting and that another judge ruled that there was no hardship to voters to go to the polls.
A huge problem with mail in ballots is that it is very difficult to find bad actors that violate the privilege of voting, the current system of mail-in ballots make it very possible for more bad actors to be successful.
To sum the framers of the constitution intended for every voter to have secrecy.
The defendants made up of about 5 lawyers representing 7 counties, had weak objections:
Exhibits
#1- Relevance and Hearsay
#2-Relevance and Hearsay
#3, 4 & 5- No objections
#6 through #12- Relevance, hearsay, prejudice, un sworn, relevant standards don’t apply.
No retaliating relief with arguments on standing. Prejudice with confusion, different standards for the election offices and for the voters, too late in the game for the General election. Non-merit injunction.
At one time the defendant lawyer said Arizona Voting is secure…and that California does it this way…it was hard not to laugh on that one. They reiterated how the counties had already sent confirmation of mail-in ballots to the voters telling them their ballot would come for the General Election already, so of course if this would not go forward, people would be confused
Another lawyer said he assumed the legislature acts legally, but then admitted that Art 7 Section on “Secrecy in voting shall be preserved”but then said no one is FORCED to vote on an Early Ballot.
Kolodin then tore their objections up with NOT ONE OBJECTION from the defendants when Attorney Kolodin was in his rebuttal to their arguments. Kolodin disputed all of their weak objections and confirmed his exhibits as qualifying. He even slid in how elected officials work with “Non-political organizations” that can become bad players.
Kolodin framed Article 4 of the Constitution:
“Framers were giving voters the power to vote, additionally they were trying to safeguard that power”. With Mail-In Ballots there is no chain of custody, thus they are not secret nor secure.
No ruling until Monday.
THANKS FOR EVERYONE THAT SHOWED UP.
Productions by George Nemeh
MAAP Real Talk Show copyrights 2022