There was little doubt that this opinion would come out any other way.
Kari Lake and Mark Finchem brought suit claiming that Arizona's method of tabulating election results was unconstitutional. They say that the use of electronic tabulation systems is way too vulnerable to hacking. Here's the process they challenge (citations omitted):
"Under the Arizona election system, voters mark their choices on paper ballots, which are then fed into electronic machines for tabulation. Before being certified for use in elections, the tabulation machines are tested by an accredited laboratory and the Secretary of State’s Certification Committee. The certified machines are then subjected to pre-election logic and accuracy tests by the Secretary of State and the election officials of each county.
After tabulation by machines, the paper ballots cast by each voter are retained for post-election audits and possible recounts. After an election, political party representatives conduct a sample hand count of the paper ballots under the oversight of county elections departments. The counties then perform additional logic and accuracy testing. Arizona law mandates a recount whenever the margin between the top two candidates “is less than or equal to one-half of one percent of the number of votes cast for both such candidates or on such measures or proposals.”
When not in use, the hardware components of electronic tabulation systems are inventoried, stored in secure locations, and sealed with tamper-resistant seals. An electronic tabulation system may not be connected to the internet, wireless communications devices, or external networks and may “not contain remote access software or any capability to remotely-access the system.”"
So what do you think? Do plaintiffs win?
Of course not.
The panel holds that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. Among other things: "Plaintiffs simply have not plausibly alleged a “real and immediate threat of” future injury. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 (1983). Rather, as the district court noted, they posit only “conjectural allegations of potential injuries.” Lake, 623 F. Supp. 3d at 1032. Their operative complaint relies on a “long chain of hypothetical contingencies” that have never occurred in Arizona and “must take place for any harm to occur—(1) the specific voting equipment used in Arizona must have ‘security failures’ that allow a malicious actor to manipulate vote totals; (2) such an actor must actually manipulate an election; (3) Arizona’s specific procedural safeguards must fail to detect the manipulation; and (4) the manipulation must change the outcome of the election.” Id. at 1028. This is the kind of speculation that stretches the concept of imminence “beyond its purpose.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 n.2. Plaintiffs’ “conjectural allegations of potential injuries,” Lake, 623 F. Supp. 3d at 1032, are insufficient to plead a plausible “real and immediate threat of” election manipulation, Lyons, 461 U.S. at 103."
Not a surprising result. At all.
