Page:Aguilera v. Fontes (CV 2020-014562) (2020) Order.pdf/2

 CV 2020-014562 Sneeringer's opinion, while seemingly neither controversial nor original as to the lack of perfection in the world, directly contradicts the linchpin of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

Plaintiffs' Complaint, stating six causes of action, contains a modest 13.5 pages of explanatory text. Within those pages, Plaintiffs assert 13 separate times that Arizona law requires and guarantees to its voters perfection in the voting process in this State, and that Plaintiffs were harmed as a legal matter by being deprived of a perfect process.

Specifically, Plaintiffs claim: (Complaint at 2:8, 4:28, 6:15, 7:6, 7:21, 7:28, 8:18–19, 8:21, 9:9, 11:23–24, 11:25–26, 12:2, and 12:23–24.)
 * the ballot casting and tabulating process did not occur with "perfect accuracy";
 * the tabulation machines did not "both automatically and perfectly read and record" all ballots and did not count votes "perfectly";
 * every tabulator was not a "perfectly accurate machine"; and
 * all votes were not "counted via a fully automated and perfect process."

THE COURT FINDS the law cannot provide, nor does it guarantee, perfection.

This Court could not locate the word "perfect," or a derivative thereof, in the Arizona Secretary of State's 2019 Elections Procedures Manual ("EPM") (Hearing Exh. "23"). Likewise, the Court is not aware of and no party has brought to the Court's attention, any Arizona elections or voting statute containing the word "perfect" or a variation thereof.

The Complaint states that it is brought by "two individuals who experienced difficulties voting on election day." (Complaint ¶ 1.1.) Docket Code 042