Recently, billionaire leftist George Soros was dealt a setback by the Supreme Court in Arizona, chiefly by voting against a major ballot initiative that would have undermined new voter integrity laws across the state.
In the ruling, the Supreme Court of Arizona declared that insufficient signatures on the petition to undermine the voter integrity laws were available, per recent a report from Breitbart.
The petition had been funded, at least in part, by leftist activist George Soros, though it fell 1,458 signatures short of the required 237,645 signatures necessary for placing the anti-voter integrity measure on the bill in November.
According to a report from Ballotpedia, Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections had initially submitted 475,290 signatures. While Maricopa County Judge Joseph Mikitish ultimately disqualified 75,000 of the signatures on August 19 after reviewing various challenges, he eventually allowed the measure to move forward and be subsequently placed on the ballot, which drew a major challenge from Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections.
Consequently, Mikitish reversed his decision to put the Soros initiative on the ballot in November, chiefly after the State Supreme Court asked him to explain his rationale underlying the 275,000 signatures that were disqualified.
Mikitish, unwilling to disclose the potentially dubious nature of nearly 300,000 signatures, opted to remove the Soros objective from the ballot instead by reversing back to his earlier decision.
The reversal decision met with the approval of attorneys for Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections, who issued a statement following the judge’s reversal decision.
“In reversing itself today, the trial court has done something never done before in Arizona initiative practice and which is not authorized by statute,” the lawyers proclaimed, adding that the reversal has permitted “initiative challengers to strike individual signatures under (the law), for any reason, and allowed them to benefit from the invalidity rate calculated by the County Recorders’ random sample that the challengers did not include in this lawsuit.”
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
