Page:Aguilera v. Fontes (CV 2020-014562) (2020) Order.pdf/7

 CV 2020-014562 2. Permit each elector to vote at any election for any person for any office whether or not nominated as a candidate, to vote for as many persons for an office as the elector is entitled to vote for and to vote for or against any question on which the elector is entitled to vote, and the vote tabulating equipment shall reject choices recorded on the elector's ballot if the number of choices exceeds the number that the elector is entitled to vote for the office or on the measure.

3. Prevent the elector from voting for the same person more than once for the same office.

4. Be suitably designed for the purpose used and be of durable construction, and may be used safely, efficiently and accurately in the conduct of elections and counting ballots.

5. Be provided with means for sealing the voting or marking device against any further voting after the close of the polls and the last voter has voted.

6. When properly operated, record correctly and count accurately every vote cast.

7. '''Provide a durable paper document that visually indicates the voter's selections, that the voter may use to verify the voter's choices, that may be spoiled by the voter if it fails to reflect the voter's choices and that permits the voter to cast a new ballot. This paper document shall be used in manual audits and recounts.''' (Emphasis added.)

As to relief requested, Aguilera requests to be able "to cast a new ballot." (Complaint at 12:10–11.) Such relief is not legally available to Aguilera. Aguilera cast one ballot and cannot lawfully cast another. In addition, once the polls have closed on Election Day, further voting is prohibited. A.R.S. § 16-446(B)(5).

Plaintiffs both seek as part of their requested relief the opportunity to attend the tabulation/adjudication process in person to watch it live and up close now and possibly in the future. Plaintiffs seek an injunction that "requirerequir [sic][es] the opening [of] the location where electronic adjudication is taking place to the public in further elections, as well as during any additional electronic adjudication that takes place this election (e.g., as a result of a recount)." (Complaint at 15:4–7.) Plaintiffs contend that the Electronic Adjudication Addendum to the 2019 EPM (Exh. "24") at § (D), entitled Electronic Vote Adjudication Procedures, justifies such an Injunction where it states "1. The electronic adjudication of votes must be performed in a secure location, preferably in the same location as the EMS system, but open to public viewing." (Complaint ¶ Docket Code 042