Lake vs Hobbs Summary
I am not a lawyer, so I am going to break this down as best I can in plain language.
Count I – Violation of Freedom of Speech - DISMISSED
The law does not prevent an elected officials (Hobbs, Richter) from reporting purported violations of Twitters’s policies. Elected officials don’t have control over Twitter’s enforcement of the terms of use. The first amendment does not restrain private parties from choosing what to publish (Twitter). There were no convincing facts presented that “coercion” took place by the government to force Twitter to take actions.
“Put another way, nothing in the First Amendment keeps a government official from presenting his views on election misinformation to another government body or a private entity. Both of which, in this case, were free to adopt or reject the Recorder’s position. Nothing about this allegation raises a First Amendment claim.”
The Twitter censorship claims cannot be classified as “election misconduct”.
“Both actions alleged to be misconduct took place months prior to canvassing, and consequently cannot be considered misconduct under the statute.”
Count II – Illegal Tabulator Configurations
Lake is entitled to prove at trial that printer malfeasance caused a loss of votes.
“Plaintiff is entitled to attempt to prove at trial that 1) the malfeasant person was a covered person under (A)(1); 2) the printer malfunctions caused by this individual directly resulted in identifiable lost votes for Plaintiff; and 3) that these votes would have affected the outcome of the election.”
Lake must show at trial that the BOD printer malfunctions were intentional, and directed to affect the results of the election, and that such actions did actually affect the outcome.
Count III – Invalid Signatures on Mail-In Ballots - DISMISSED
Objections to the electronic signature process need to be made before the election, not during or after.
Count IV – Ballot Chain of Custody - DENIED
“As presented, whether the county complied with its own manual and applicable statutes is a dispute of fact rather than one of law. This is true as to whether such lack of compliance was both intentional and did in fact result in a changed outcome.”
Count V: Equal Protection and Count VI: Due Process - DISMISSED
Lake did not prove that Republicans were discriminated against.
“Plaintiff does not clearly allege that an actor actually discriminated against a class (i.e. Republicans) or that this discrimination could actually alter the outcome given ticket splitters even among election day voters.”
Count VII – Secrecy Clause - DISMISSED
Objections to mail in ballot voting could have been brought to the court any time in the last 30 years.
Count VIII: Incorrect Certification - DISMISSED
Because earlier counts were DISMISSED, the cumulative effect of this count is not valid.
Count IX: Inadequate Remedy - DISMISSED
The court cannot concoct a new remedy like ordering a new election.
Count X: Constitutional Rights - DISMISSED
This claim cannot be dealt with in this lawsuit.
“This Court may hear Plaintiff’s civil rights claims in a separate action, but they must be dismissed from this election contest as out of the scope of Section 16-672.”
Conclusion
CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED dismissing all counts of Plaintiff’s Verified Statement of Election contest except for Count II and Count IV. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming this Court’s prior order concerning ballot inspection to take place at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 20, 2022.