The GOP members from Arizona put on a court case to challenge the mail-in voting that was previously used back in the 2020 elections. The petitioners claimed that it was unlawful and opposes the state’s constitution.
The mail-in balloting case was submitted to the Arizona Court of Appeals, however, the judge ruled against the lawsuit.
Do you trust the main stream media?
"*" indicates required fields
A couple of days ago on Tuesday, the court gave its judgment following a lower court that bounced the lawsuit put on by the GOP Party from Arizona and its chairwoman, Kelli Ward. They filed the lawsuit as they were claiming that the mail-in balloting is against the state constitution’s “secrecy in voting” clause.
Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, who gave the remarks, noted: “When the Arizona Constitution was adopted, the definitions of ‘secrecy’ included ‘the state or quality of being hidden; concealment,’” per a 1912 version of the New Websterian Dictionary.
Another similar explanation also noted: “‘Preserve’ definitions included ‘to keep from injury; defend; uphold; save; keep in a sound state.’”
“Thus, the Secrecy Clause’s meaning is clear: when providing for voting by ballot or any other method, the legislature must uphold voters’ ability to conceal their choices. The constitution does not mandate any particular method for preserving secrecy in voting,” Bailey’s opinion continued.
The Post Millennial noted further:
Bailey further emphasized by saying that the state’s mail-in balloting laws “preserve secrecy in voting by requiring voters to ensure they fill out their ballot in secret and seal the ballot in an envelope that does not disclose the voters’ choices.”
She notified that the election officials who arrange mail-in voting should ensure the nature of the returning envelopes, which must have a temper-evident seal and it does not disclose the voting selections.
Bailey further quoted the Arizona Revised Statutes and mentioned it as a class two violation for any election officer if he opens or permits to open the vote before the voter deposits it in the vote box.
“These statutes ensure that mail-in voters’ choices are concealed by requiring voters to mark their ballot so their vote cannot be seen and then to securely seal it in an envelope that does not disclose their vote,” the appeals judge wrote.
“After a voter does this, election officials cannot open the ballot to reveal the voter’s selection. It must be deposited in the ballot box to be counted. At no point can the voter’s identifying information on their ballot envelope be lawfully connected with their vote,” she added.
The judge also highlighted the petitioner’s argument that the lower court “erred in relying on Miller v. Picacho Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 33 to conclude that Arizona’s mail-in voting statutes preserve secrecy in voting.”
“In Miller,” she countered, “our supreme court observed that a law that required election officers to mail the absentee ballot to the requesting voter and prohibited anyone other than that voter from possessing the ballot advanced the constitutional goal of secrecy in voting.”
“The superior court here properly noted our supreme court in Miller observed that mail-in voting laws further the goal of secrecy. But the superior court did not rely solely on Miller to find that mail-in voting laws constitutionally preserve secrecy in voting. We find no error in the superior court’s analysis,” said Bailey
“Arizona’s mail-in voting statutes ensure that voters fill out their ballot in a manner that does not disclose their vote and that voters’ choices are not later revealed. The superior court did not err in finding that these protections are sufficient to preserve secrecy in voting,” she concluded.
The GOP lawsuit proclaimed that the Arizona mail-in voting laws are in direct violation of the state’s constitution as “the text” of the document “is clear that voting rights are to be exercised ‘at the polls,’” adding that “Article 7, section 1 of Arizona’s constitution requires secrecy in voting and does not allow for mail-in voting.”
“All elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall be preserved,” the state constitution says.
The lawsuit also charged that “such other method as may be prescribed by law” wasn’t “a broad and general grant of authority” to extend balloting to mail-in voting but instead it “allows the legislature to authorize voting machines in lieu of paper ballots.”
This ruling shows that the American Justice System is currently only working for Democrats who are going against the state’s constitution. Instead of facing repercussions, Democrats are receiving rulings in their favor. The scary part is that such verdicts will turn the U.S. into a one-party nation.