Cochise County holds emergency meeting after lawsuit filed for refusal to certify election results

[Wandering Monk]

So apparently if Cochise County doesn't certify their results by December 8, state law says their votes won't be counted. This would remove enough votes that the Democrat in this Congressional District would win the race, rather than the Republican who has about a 5000 vote lead.

No fixing stupid.

An Arizona County’s Refusal to Certify Election Results Could Cost GOP a House Seat

 

[Shaul]

Cochise county has now certified its ballot results. As I wrote before, a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Cochise county has now certified its ballot results. As I wrote before, a tempest in a teapot.

When ordered to by a court!

 

[metis]

Cochise county has now certified its ballot results. As I wrote before, a tempest in a teapot.

So, trying to overturn an election through illegal actions is a "tempest in a teapot"?

As for me, I cherish democratic values, so I take such actions much more seriously regardless of whom does it.

 

[Shaul]

So, trying to overturn an election through illegal actions is a "tempest in a teapot"?

As for me, I cherish democratic values, so I take such actions much more seriously regardless of whom does it.

There is no evidence that the County tried to overturn the election.

 

[Shaul]

When ordered to by a court!

An unambiguous election under clear rules doesn't need a court to force certifications!

 

[metis]

There is no evidence that the County tried to overturn the election.

No, the county didn't but those who needed to certify weren't willing to do so, and they're in the majority of the party whose utter depravity you keep defending.

So, what is it about neo-fascism that you so much like and defend? If you can't see it, then you've never seriously studied fascism, including the lead up to the Holocaust.

BTW, Trump's first wife, Ivana, said that he kept NAZI essays on his nightstand that he would often read before turning in at night.

 

[metis]

An unambiguous election under clear rules doesn't need a court to force certifications!

How in the world do you supposedly know that it was ambiguous?

 

[Shaul]

How in the world do you supposedly know that it was ambiguous?

For you to ask this question shows you haven't even considered the issues raised by the Cochise supervisors.

 

[Shaul]

No, the county didn't but those who needed to certify weren't willing to do so, and they're in the majority of the party whose utter depravity you keep defending.

So, what is it about neo-fascism that you so much like and defend? If you can't see it, then you've never seriously studied fascism, including the lead up to the Holocaust.

BTW, Trump's first wife, Ivana, said that he kept NAZI essays on his nightstand that he would often read before turning in at night.

The County took action because of input from their constituents who had concerns. The County had dual responsibilities, one to certify by a certain date and another to be certain the results were correct. Outsiders (like you) that only focus on the former and ignore the latter responsibility are wrong.

Meanwhile, in California, they have yet to call the election in the 13th Congressional district. This is three and a half weeks after the election date. And they aren't required to finalize until December 9, a full month after the election date! Do you object to that? If not, you are being dissonant.

 

[metis]

For you to ask this question shows you haven't even considered the issues raised by the Cochise supervisors.

I know that the law requires them to certify unless a recount is needed, and the simple fact that you don't even consider that tells us a lot about where you're coming from and why, as if there was no question anyway. The fact that they backed off says a lot.

 

[metis]

The County took action because of input from their constituents who had concerns. The County had dual responsibilities, one to certify by a certain date and another to be certain the results were correct. Outsiders (like you) that only focus on the former and ignore the latter responsibility are wrong.

Meanwhile, in California, they have yet to call the election in the 13th Congressional district. This is three and a half weeks after the election date. And they aren't required to finalize until December 9, a full month after the election date! Do you object to that? If not, you are being dissonant.

You can't even see the difference, which again comes as no surprise.

The certification process simply cannot be rushed because an error could be catastrophic, which is the case with the latter. In the former, the issue is a political blockage with no evidence of wrongdoing other than what the Pubs involved with certification said but logically must have had no proof of or they could have taken it to next step through the court system.

If you can't even see the difference between these two, then you've made it clear where the problem really lies. Maybe if you studied instead of jumping to conclusions without evidence, you'd know better.