Arizona behaving badly and otherwise

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Richer…

[p0rtia]

I’m confused about the lawsuit Richer filed. I read it as he was the one who sued to get the 100 k voters off the rolls. So he lost the case but is happy about it. Do I read this as the lawsuit being his duty as Recorder to file, but basically just the fastest way to get a decision? In the suit he says that according to law those voters were not eligible.

[Foggy]

I think according to law those voters were not eligible, but they were mostly long-term voters who had done nothing wrong, and he didn't want to be responsible for denying the franchise to 100K voters. He said the vast majority were US citizens for certain. So he felt he had a duty to bring it to the court's attention. Besides, better to do it this way than to keep his fingers crossed and stay silent about it and hope some MAGAt didn't start screaming about it after the election. This way, it's all cleaned up and ready for prime time.

I think ...

[Dave from down under]

Sometimes you need to file a case that you might want to lose to get the clarity that is needed.

Like that there was a case in Western Australia that the government funded the appeal by a person convicted under a WA law (lobster fishing), to be sure that the law was just.

[bill_g]

That's my read too. He was doing a kindness and was working towards the benefit of those potentially disenfrancised, and did it without fireworks or charade while he still could. It's too bad his constituents decided he was not worthy enough to serve them any longer. I think they cut off their noses despite their faces.

[sugar magnolia]

That's my read too. He was doing a kindness and was working towards the benefit of those potentially disenfrancised, and did it without fireworks or charade while he still could. It's too bad his constituents decided he was not worthy enough to serve them any longer. I think they cut off their noses despite to spite their faces.

[p0rtia]

Thanks, all !

So, the question arises, why didn't he file something to keep them _on_ the roles, if that's what he wanted? I guess the answer is going to be that it doesn't work that way.

[Foggy]

... why didn't he file something to keep them _on_ the roles, if that's what he wanted?

Because he believed the law meant they were ineligible, so he argued what he thought was the law. But he's happy to be proved wrong.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Thanks, all !

So, the question arises, why didn't he file something to keep them _on_ the roles, if that's what he wanted? I guess the answer is going to be that it doesn't work that way.

Someone had to take the position that they weren't eligible, and SCoAZ was more likely to defer to SoS, so Richer got to play Devil's Advocate. But they can't tell the court that.

[pipistrelle]

I think according to law those voters were not eligible, but they were mostly long-term voters who had done nothing wrong, and he didn't want to be responsible for denying the franchise to 100K voters. He said the vast majority were US citizens for certain. So he felt he had a duty to bring it to the court's attention. Besides, better to do it this way than to keep his fingers crossed and stay silent about it and hope some MAGAt didn't start screaming about it after the election. This way, it's all cleaned up and ready for prime time.

I think ...

That's my interpretation. It was the right thing to do, which is why it's crappy he was voted out.

[pipistrelle]

Thanks, all !

So, the question arises, why didn't he file something to keep them _on_ the roles, if that's what he wanted? I guess the answer is going to be that it doesn't work that way.

Someone had to take the position that they weren't eligible, and SCoAZ was more likely to defer to SoS, so Richer got to play Devil's Advocate. But they can't tell the court that.

Zactly.

[Dave from down under]

Because he does the right thing is why he was voted out…

Too many people want the wrong thing to happen