SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
Sneeringer's opinion, while seemingly neither controversial nor original as to the lack of perfection in the world, directly contradicts the linchpin of Plaintiffs' Complaint.[1]
Plaintiffs' Complaint, stating six causes of action, contains a modest 13.5 pages of explanatory text. Within those pages, Plaintiffs assert 13 separate times that Arizona law requires and guarantees to its voters perfection in the voting process in this State, and that Plaintiffs were harmed as a legal matter by being deprived of a perfect process.
Specifically, Plaintiffs claim:
- the ballot casting and tabulating process did not occur with "perfect accuracy";
- the tabulation machines did not "both automatically and perfectly read and record" all ballots and did not count votes "perfectly";
- every tabulator was not a "perfectly accurate machine"; and
- all votes were not "counted via a fully automated and perfect process."
(Complaint at 2:8, 4:28, 6:15, 7:6, 7:21, 7:28, 8:18–19, 8:21, 9:9, 11:23–24, 11:25–26, 12:2, and 12:23–24.)
The Court finds the law cannot provide, nor does it guarantee, perfection.
This Court could not locate the word "perfect," or a derivative thereof, in the Arizona Secretary of State's 2019 Elections Procedures Manual ("EPM") (Hearing Exh.[2] "23"). Likewise, the Court is not aware of and no party has brought to the Court's attention, any Arizona elections or voting statute containing the word "perfect" or a variation thereof.
The Complaint states that it is brought by "two individuals who experienced difficulties voting on election day." (Complaint ¶ 1.1.)
- ↑ Plaintiffs Laurie Aguilera ("Aguilera") and Donovan Drobina ("Drobina") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Verified Complaint ("Complaint") on 1111212020. Although the Complaint is required to be verified, only Aguilera verified the Complaint; Drobina did not. Aguilera explicitly limits her Verification as follows: "My knowledge of course being limited to the facts of my particular circumstances." (Id., second sentence.) Aguilera's particular circumstances are not the same circumstances Drobina experienced. In addition, Drobina's Declaration (Exh. "D" to Complaint) does not verify the Complaint, and was dated 11/4/2020 which date is well before 11/12/2020 when the Complaint herein was both dated and filed, but 11/4/2020 is consistent with the date these Plaintiffs filed an earlier Complaint in CV2020-014083 ("Aguilera I"). Further, in the final paragraph of both of Drobina's Declarations (attached to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in Aguilera I and Exh. "D" to the Complaint herein), Drobina states expressly that "Kolodin Law Group PLLC is not my attorney," yet Kolodin Law Group PLLC appears in the Complaint herein as counsel representing Drobina and likewise Kolodin Law Group PLLC has appeared on Drobina's behalf at all proceedings throughout the entirety of both this matter and Aguilera I.
- ↑ Unless otherwise noted, all exhibits referenced hereinafter are to exhibits received in evidence during the Hearing.
