蜜柚直播

In an extensive ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Randall Warner agreed with Assistant Attorney General Michael Catlett that 蜜柚直播 law requires that a ballot 鈥渂e delivered鈥� to someone who is seeking the help of a 鈥渟pecial election board.鈥� These are panels set up in each county, consisting of one Republican and one Democrat, who go to homes, nursing homes and other facilities to help people who are unable to fill out their ballots.

鈥淭he statute is unambiguous,鈥� Warner wrote.

But the judge said that doesn鈥檛 end the issue.

鈥淭he county recorder has a duty 鈥� as does everyone else involved in the election process 鈥� to ensure a voter鈥檚 disability does not prevent them from voting,鈥� he said. That includes a requirement to make 鈥渞easonable modifications.鈥�

鈥淚f a person鈥檚 disability is such that they cannot meet with a special election board in person, then the 鈥榠n person鈥� requirement must yield to federal law,鈥� Warner wrote.

The practice at issue comes up when a voter cannot, or will not, meet with a special election board. That can range from individual concerns by someone who may have a compromised immune system to those confined to nursing homes, assisted living centers and similar facilities where access has been restricted because of COVID-19.

Instead, the policy crafted by Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes 鈥� and echoed by guidelines issued by Secretary of State Katie Hobbs for other counties 鈥� has election workers use a computer tablet to 鈥渕eet鈥� with someone who is confined. That voter can use his or her own computer or a tablet furnished by the election board.

Election workers would go through the ballot line by line with voters, confirm the ballot reflects their views, and then effectively 鈥渟ign鈥� the ballot for them.

Catlett argued there is no need for video voting at these facilities, even in the face of COVID-19. He pointed out the 蜜柚直播 Department of Health Services has decreed that election workers are 鈥渆ssential鈥� and are permitted to enter these premises.

That argument did not impress Warner.

鈥淭he issue is not the legal impediment to in-person contract, it is the health risk,鈥� the judge said. 鈥淔ederal law does not allow 蜜柚直播 to impose on disabled voters the choice between voting and protecting their health.鈥�

Still, the judge said, his ruling is not a broad license for expanded use of video screens to cast ballots.

鈥淭hat does not mean the county recorder is free to use video voting whenever he wants or for any voter who asks,鈥� Warner wrote. He said the law still requires that personal contact, a requirement that 鈥渙nly yields to federal law when necessary to allow a disabled person to vote.鈥�

Catlett, however, argued that what鈥檚 being proposed here is not just different but also dangerous.

鈥淚t strips away the one method for voter integrity that the 蜜柚直播 Legislature included in the statutory procedures,鈥� he said.

鈥淚t may be the wave of the future,鈥� Catlett told Warner.

鈥淚t may be a great thing,鈥� he continued, even if there are safeguards. 鈥淏ut all of those considerations need to be decided by the 蜜柚直播 Legislature.鈥�

Warner dismissed that contention, saying the risk of fraud is low.

鈥淏ipartisan special election boards are a safeguard against that,鈥� Warner said. 鈥淐onversely, there would be irreparable harm if disabled voters are unable to vote, and it is later determined that this violated their rights under 蜜柚直播 and federal disability law.鈥�

But Monday鈥檚 ruling also was not a clear victory for Fontes.

He had asked Warner for a blanket ruling to rule his policy of how and when to allow video voting is necessarily legal. And Fontes was backed by Hobbs who put out her own guidelines for video voting that mirrored what Maricopa County had adopted.

Warner refused.

鈥淭here is no way to know in advance exactly what situations will necessitate a video interaction,鈥� the judge said. More to the point, Warner said he can鈥檛 determine when video voting is legal and when it is not without having a specific case in front of him.

鈥淭he court cannot issue declaratory relief approving the policy in advance of its application,鈥� the judge said.

During arguments earlier in the day, Catlett even suggested that Fontes and Hobbs actually have a broader goal in mind than helping a handful of voters who need this kind of assistance.

鈥淚t鈥檚 fairly clear that they contemplate 100% virtual voting,鈥� he told Warner, saying that Fontes plans to use FaceTime to allow people to vote online, 鈥渨hich is completely insecure.鈥�

Catlett complained that those guidelines are far too broad, allowing for 鈥渇ull video voting鈥� if someone is unable to mark a ballot.

鈥淭here鈥檚 no connection that has to be because of illness or injury or physical limitation or qualifying disability under the ADA or under the federal law,鈥� he said. 鈥淭here鈥檚 any number of reasons why somebody may be unable to mark their ballot.鈥�

In fact, he said, the guidelines even allow for video voting for people who are 鈥渦ncomfortable鈥� with face-to-face voting due to COVID-19.

鈥淭he way their policies are written, if you forgot to request a mail-in ballot, you鈥檙e afraid to go to the polls in person due to COVID, you would qualify to take advantage of this procedure,鈥� Catlett said.

Attorney Joshua Bendor, representing Fontes, told Warner that Catlett was raising issues that did not exist in a bid to quash all forms of video voting.

鈥淭his case is about the recorder鈥檚 attempt, using a very targeted policy, to ensure the disabled people in Maricopa County who are physically unable to mark their own ballots due to disability can vote in the election this year,鈥� he said.