המפלגה הרפובליקנית מערערת נגד מספר חוקים לקראת הבחירות

You all may remember that in 2020, Arizona courts rejected numerous election-related lawsuits filed by a host of individuals and groups, including former President Trump's campaign and the Arizona Republican Party. The top issue, voting machines. In particular, Trump's team alleged that machines failed to properly count votes. Now, fast forward to this year, Arizona, with 11 electoral college votes, is one of just a few states that could tip the balance in favor of either presidential candidate on November 5th. It's one of the border states, and as you know, immigration is a top issue this election cycle. The Republican strategy here, as in other swing states, is to take preventative measures to avoid problems they believe cost Trump the election in 2020. Now, many of their lawsuits aim to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls and ensure that election officials are strictly enforcing the rules. Democrats have responded, saying these efforts are violating federal laws that bar officials from removing voters in the 90 days before an election. And on that note, Arizona's Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit filed by Maricopa County election official Stephen Richer against the Secretary of State. Now, Richer, a Republican, argued that nearly 100,000 voters should receive only a federal ballot. And this is because a 20-year-old glitch in the system resulted in those voters not verifying their citizenship. The Secretary of State argued the voters shouldn't have to be held accountable for the county's mistake. And the judge agreed. The judge ruled that the delinquent voters should have full access to the ballot, including federal, state, and local races. Now, both sides were celebrating on X, and even Richer said, thank God. Now, this is a quick case that was described as friendly because it was intended to clarify the law. Richer's move for clarity comes after a conservative advocacy group filed a sweeping lawsuit that challenges all 15 Arizona counties' practices for removing non-citizens from their voter rolls. Now, that case is still ongoing. Now, a similar case decided by a federal judge blocks Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes from using a new provision in the election procedures, which would let him certify election results even if a county refuses to sign off on its own results. Now, that provision was challenged by the America First Policy Institute. And I should note the new provision was created because of problems after the 2022 midterm elections. And at that time, two officials from a largely Republican county had delayed the certification due to allegations of election fraud. Now, if the new rule is applied, Fontes, who is a Democrat, could potentially exclude all votes in a given county. The Trump-appointed judge, Michael Liberti, said the rule would give Fontes nearly carte blanche authority to disenfranchise the ballots of potentially millions of Arizona voters. But last month, the U.S. Supreme Court shot down Republicans' bid to keep a proof-of-citizenship law. Now, under that law, registered voters would have to document their U.S. citizenship in order to vote. If enforced, thousands of voters would have been barred from casting a ballot in the November presidential contest or voting by mail. But the court did allow the state to enforce another part of the law, and that applies to potential voters, those who have not yet registered. Now, those voters do have to document their citizenship during voter registration. Now, there are some other cases that are still ongoing, to include a Republican case challenging the state's maintenance of its voter rolls, a case challenging two provisions of the 2023 election procedures manual, and, of course, the state's indictment against 18 individuals allegedly involved in a so-called 2020 fake elector scheme. Again, Republicans are filing a number of lawsuits across the country ahead of the election, primarily in swing states. They're targeting voter rules and practices that could allow hundreds of non-citizens on voter rolls. But Democrats are not remaining passive. They're fighting back, mostly on defense, but also filing some lawsuits of their own.