>

Every time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.
”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.

For fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY. >

I was friends with him in college, I guarantee this is an image thing so he can fail upwards in the GOP. He might've gone genuinely crazy since then but he was always a bit too shrewd to be an actual denier by my reckoning. >

Denier of what? the truth? Fact is 40% of the votes from this Arizona election from mail in ballots. How can this be regulated into a safe and functioning system that ensure election integrity. >

It was a recount to confirm her win, but yes, this is what leads to victory in narrow races in hotly contened states. We start from the ground up, and this is promising in a state like AZ. >

Did Kari Lake eat some of the votes? >

A few votes changing isn't uncommon in recounts. Even a 99.999% success rate leads to changes. >

The magnitude of the change is pretty huge though... Usually the overall change is smaller. 
This article explains why they changed so much.
TL;DR: Pinal county fucked up and didn't count about 500 votes.  That county happens to lean right, which is why the totals changed more than expected. >

I’m guessing the “they’re tryna steal our election” folks won’t be talking about this one >

Is that sarcasm? >


Republican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward

Relentless. >

Ehh.
I support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.
The problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges. >

What legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like? >

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.
But if--and that's a big hypothetical "if", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.
The point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.