After a long, bitterly contested legal struggle, a Maricopa County judge has ruled that millions of voter ballots must be turned over to the Arizona Senate.
The stunning news, which comes over a month after the Biden Inauguration, was reported by the Associated Press.
“A judge has ruled that the Arizona Senate can get access to 2.1 million ballots from Arizona’s most populous county so it can audit results of the 2020 election that saw Democrat Joe Biden win in the state,” the AP reported.
“Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Thomason’s decision on Friday comes after a protracted battled between the Republican-controlled state Senate and the GOP-dominated Maricopa County board over subpoenas issued by the Senate,” the report added.
The board of elections had tried to keep the ballots secret and away from an audit.
“The board contended that the ballots were secret, that the Legislature had no right to access them and that the subpoenas issued by Senate President Karen Fann were for an illegitimate purpose, among other arguments,” the AP noted.
“The Senate’s lawyers contended that the constitution gives the Legislature the role of maintaining the purity of elections and make sure voter integrity is protected, that the subpoenas were legal and a proper use of legislative power,” the report stated.
The judge’s ruling comes in the aftermath of an “independent” audit provided by the Maricopa election officials that claims the election was completely above-board.
“The results of the county’s independent audit released Tuesday found that the votes were counted correctly, the machines worked properly, and the machines were not hacked or connected to the internet during the election,” the Washington Examiner reported.
“The Senate wants another audit of ballots and a check of voter information, while the county has contended that its multiple audits have been sufficient and said the ballots must remain sealed under state law,” the report continued.
The Arizona Senate’s coming “audit of the audit” will find out exactly how “independent” these election observers really are.
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.