>>17992838
Editing my prior post. I was wrong. Missed the evidentiary rulings at the beginning. There were some. But the extremely truncated and expedited schedule would be a challenge to most trial lawyers.
There is a need to uphold the election process and integrity in a timely (expedited) fashion (otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry could hold up the finalization of any election and transfer of power could be held up, resulting in uncertainty and potential chaos).
But existing current guardrails seem to to favor rubberstamping election results:
(a) challenge too soon and you don't have standing; challenge after the election and you've waiting too long - Catch 22;
(b) Bring lawsuit making allegations based on usual evidentiary and professional integrity standards - which allegations will be proven through discovery, sworn testimony, subpoenaed records and witnesses, experts, etc., and your lawsuit is dismissed for lack of standing or "no proof" (which "proof" is what would normally occur during the trial, not at the complaint stage), and then media and pundits and know-it-alls endlessly echo "no proof" across all forums - when the process for developing the proof sufficient to establish your case had been denied the complainant.
Just an observer (admittedly not an elections attorney - which is a specialty) but it sure seems as if the current processes for "challenging election results" are in name only (state and federal) and encourage abuse of election processes with no real (effective) safe guards.
To further ensure abusers of the process (i.e., cheaters) succeed, some judges are actually sanctioning, or threatening to sanction, lawyers who dare try to challenge (sending clear deterrent messages to all lawyers who might think about it) and some state licensing boards are putting those lawyers' means of making a living (after significant investments of time and money) in jeopardy by threatening to or actually disbarring them.
Hopefully, next steps coming out of this shining of light onto the 2020 election election challenge problems and this 2022 one in AZ will be election process law reform that safeguards against abuse (and sanctions abusers, not gatekeepers) in transparent, fair, expeditious, and confidence-inducing ways - including meaningful ways to move challenges forward and allow adequate time for the development of proof sufficient to sustain a cause of action without disbarring attorneys for doing so.
The balancing act is tricky because of the abusive explosion of law fare against President Trump, his family, colleagues, supporters, political and business associates - that has been allowed ad nauseum and will no doubt continue into future elections involving him.
But the shutting down of most, and unfair rushing through of the trickle allowed, of election challenges in 2020 and 2022 has to result in more fair election challenges in the future.
With safeguards against abuse of the election process as well as the challenge process.
(Maybe this area of law, like immigration law, is already on the books, just not enforced. The "plandemic" allowed for "emergency" rules that provided so many voting means not allowed by the laws passed by respective legislatures that going back to the actual laws that have been legislated would be sufficient. Or at least a start.)