The Arizona Sun Times examined the outcomes of the 92 cases challenging problems with the 2020 election and discovered many of the rulings were opposed to each other despite the facts and laws being very similar.
The analysis was based on a comprehensive report compiled by physicist John Droz and a team of statistical PhDs, which refuted the mainstream media’s claim that were 60 lawsuits thrown out on the merits. The report found that only 30 of those cases were decided on merit, and of those 30, Trump and/or the Republican plaintiff prevailed in 22. This analysis, Part One, examines some of the divergent opinions on standing, fraud, and injury.
Constitutional attorney Robert Barnes said about the judges’ reasonings for throwing out 2020 lawsuits, “Can’t sue before the election, can’t sue during election, can’t sue after election. Not ripe in spring, no standing by summer, Laches by fall, and moot by winter.”
Many of the challenges were dismissed by judges because they failed to “allege a particular injury” or “irreparable harm,” or the risk of fraud was too speculative, but were instead a “general grievance.” However, a few judges came to the opposite conclusion regarding the same facts. Many of the challenges cited violations of state law but were dismissed for various reasons, such as claiming to stop the illegal actions were too close to the election, risking disenfranchisement of voters, or justifing as an emergency due to COVID-19. On the other hand, some judges refused to allow the illegal activity to continue, conducting a balancing test.
Read the rest of the article at The Arizona Sun Times
Subscribe to email updates from the Arizona Sun Times