Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 62,575
- 56,073
- 3,600
They cannot make their own rules. Now they know. Citizens are rising up.
"They contended that the EPM imposed overly broad and vague restrictions on speech, particularly targeting those who raise concerns about election integrity.
The court’s ruling, issued by Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill, specifically targets Chapter 9 of the EPM, which outlined rules meant to preserve order and security at voting locations.
The plaintiffs contended that these rules, which included prohibitions on “harassment” and “intimidation” within and outside of polling locations, were vague and overly broad. They argued that such restrictions could be weaponized to silence voters and activists who sought to expose potential election fraud.
Judge Ryan-Touhill agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the language in the EPM was not only too vague but also expanded criminal liability in a way that could infringe upon free speech rights guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution.
The judge highlighted that many of the prohibited actions, such as raising one’s voice or using “offensive language,” are protected forms of expression. The ruling emphasized that the government’s interest in maintaining order at polling places does not justify the suppression of free speech."
www.thegatewaypundit.com
"They contended that the EPM imposed overly broad and vague restrictions on speech, particularly targeting those who raise concerns about election integrity.
The court’s ruling, issued by Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill, specifically targets Chapter 9 of the EPM, which outlined rules meant to preserve order and security at voting locations.
The plaintiffs contended that these rules, which included prohibitions on “harassment” and “intimidation” within and outside of polling locations, were vague and overly broad. They argued that such restrictions could be weaponized to silence voters and activists who sought to expose potential election fraud.
Judge Ryan-Touhill agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the language in the EPM was not only too vague but also expanded criminal liability in a way that could infringe upon free speech rights guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution.
The judge highlighted that many of the prohibited actions, such as raising one’s voice or using “offensive language,” are protected forms of expression. The ruling emphasized that the government’s interest in maintaining order at polling places does not justify the suppression of free speech."
Arizona Judge Declares Key Portions of 2024 Election Manual Unconstitutional, Siding with Election Integrity Advocates | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
In a landmark ruling on Monday, an Arizona judge declared that portions of the Democrat Secretary of State’s Election Procedure Manual (EPM) for the upcoming 2024 elections are unconstitutional.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
