Yeah, I think he anticipated that concern with the official statement. In particular: "Arizona wasn't named in this lawsuit because our office successfully prevented many of the same troubling and last-minute changes to our state's election integrity laws."
The word choice is interesting..."successfully prevented" suggests there were attempts to do so and it was stopped.
Why isn't Arizona a defendent?
They had a ton of fraud but apparently it didn't involve bypassing legislatures
Correct ^^ This is also why NV isn't listed. They did change their laws, but used the legislature to do it.
Which is really just more proof that PA WI MI GA fucked up, that you can point to NV and say "they did the wrong thing, but at least did it legally".
Yeah, I think he anticipated that concern with the official statement. In particular: "Arizona wasn't named in this lawsuit because our office successfully prevented many of the same troubling and last-minute changes to our state's election integrity laws."
The word choice is interesting..."successfully prevented" suggests there were attempts to do so and it was stopped.
The suit is not about fraud. Arizona didn't do anything with the constitutional issue in question.
I would imagine something is happening in Arizona were they don't think they needed to sue them