darlene hall's water for home livestock and only has electricity for the last ten years she lives on a fixed she doesn't have internet it's an eighteen mile round trip post office box and each of these ability we believe that the harm can really be addressed by secretary hobbs alone because the secretary is the ultimate authority on arizona's election rules from the county recorder's are bound by her decision but and so my question is since the record shows that it's not even clear that ballots are actually postmarked and then you can't even i ask which ballot from are you looking for that question i had this summer is i'm wondering if if the ballots in arizona tell you whether the person that's mailed to you is an indian even if it came from a particular location balance and count them after the deadline but others would not be counted in the same manner that that raises an equal protection problem and i haven't researched it but it seemed like the st thing someone would say is i'm a oh my ballot on the day that and i don't see where that's brief but it seems obvious to me that you have some sort of problem with equal protection or one of the things oh you're out of work with it but it's protected class lambastes reservation but what we're doing it is not so addressing more time to consider who we're saying is going to be considered as having been received which is a different different issue if i vote  count my my ball i haven't done any research to see there's an equal protection from i don't want to go off on a red herring but i it seems to me just once he says that there's a problem with with i think it happened in bush versus gore where some votes are counted and  have not had had time or occasion to think through your equal protection questions on not sure i'm getting it right but i think the sections you analysis tries to or does account for that potential imbalance is the circumstances here are quite different from for example the case that on three of your colleagues heard last night that even you have voter case circumstances here different in that reservation and there's no dispute as to as to the nature of those conditions and the of theft of those conditions have in terms of making it more difficult for these borders to access  creating the factual record that that forms the foundation of i have section to claim here it's not it's not like league of women voters versus north carolina where the  i thank you very much can i ask a question with regard to the geographical areas there's nothing in the record that indicates what percentage of individuals living in these affected counties  which is the issue of constitutional standing and particularly the redress ability prong and whether the secretary can effectuate the requested relief plaintiffs lack standing because their alleged harms are not redressal by this court identify which ballots allow and count there are two reasons why the answer to their question is no the st is that the secretary does not receive bal get cast by voters in arizona go to the county recorder's in the counties in which the voters reside the secretary has no function to collect allow open tabulate  and to living on the reservation as mr stanton indicated there may be information on a ballot with respect to a precinct yet amount of work or a county recorder and again this is not the work that the secretary of state the county recorder word to make a particular precinct ballot they would have to identify which precinct that ballot came from then determine whether that precinct is within a particular geographical area such as the navajo nation in it because the counties you know include in areas that are not tribal lands there are other areas that they would have to identify where the precinct has and then and this is really this big and if again problem it would have to determine if the voter is in fact a member of the navajo nation there is nothing on the voter registration cards or the ballot for that matter and in fact we believe it would be all the magic to be identifying voters by their their racial or  ethnic identity or the fact that they are tribal member that information doesn't exist on the ballots so you cannot identify which people on the plane to believe should be benefiting from the relief that they're seeking in this case voter confusion and significant administrative burden in very short periods of time before the election we have both of those things here if the ship or were to reverse and allow things  gets mailed to every voter on the websites that the county recorder's the secretary of state in the you know elections commission put out there is a tremendous amount of information at the deadline to submit your ballot is election day seven pm enjoying that deadline specially for us top set of voters would create an incredible amount of confusion oh what if somebody who is a member of the possible yaki tribal nation in southern arizona thought that people were sure that this wasn't intended to allow all native americans in arizona postmarked their ballot as opposed to having it returned on the receipt that the election date received deadline that would create significant confusion for voters to know does this relieve that would be it would be that it's off by plane just would it apply to one native american voter versus another but more than that the process that i described would would require a significant amount of administrative burden for county elections officials who are not currently staffed trained and set to go through the process to determine whether or not a ballot that's received hosed election day didn't fact come from one of the authority on the county reporters there are two ways that county reporters get instructions about the work that they do in elections that's through the statutes and what the legislature passes and then there's the elections procedure manual which is the equivalent of the secretary promulgating rules to fill in the blanks and provide some administrative guidance to county elections and about how to hunt elections but that process requires just like normal rule making a period of time where they put the elections procedure manual out for comment the and ultimately it must be approved by the attorney general and the governor so it is not something that the secretary can unilaterally amend  court order declaring that a particular statute was unconstitutional of course the secretary would comply with people order and the process that we would follow is amending the elections procedure manual and then obtaining the approval of the attorney general that elections procedure manual doesn't have the force in effect of law until it goes through the process of approval through the attorney general's office go if there is a law in arizona that's declared unconstitutional we would comply with that order we would still argue however that the appropriate parties to be going to be interest and simple parties that are required for a case like this where a mandatory injunction is being requested are the individual reporters who affirmatively have to take the steps to  count the ballots that were cast or and postmarked after that receipt deadline so the secretary may be the appropriate just and for purposes of amending the procedures manual but you also need the county recorder's who are the individuals who are doing the actual work that would be the subject of the mandatory injunction i want to also talk about a couple other significant standing issues that the secretary raised in a motion to dismiss that was filed with the just record in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing but that the court deferred for later just isn't but we issues or close to relieve the plea just and provide an alternative basis for affirming the trial court's ruling the parties before the court have not provided any allegations regarding their own injury in fact there are no allegations in the complaint nor did any of the plaintiffs testify of the injunction hearing about the fact that they intend to participate in the tw that they themselves are planning to use of zero by mail ballot and there is no evidence in the record that they have ever previously submitted a ballot that was rejected because they suffer from some sort of mailed the  harms are not traceable to the secretary or more importantly to the receipt deadline and judge know in his order talked about this that many of the voters he stated in his in his ruling that many of the issues n were somehow to be modified that that in fact would address the many other allegations of harm the plea just so forth and their claim i want to address the question that i think judge mchugh when you asked about whether or not the what i can tell you is that while that order came out and in fact the national association of secretary of state's held a call with our secretary of state and indicated that that the plan was to do that there has been no confirmation that is actually happening in frankly we have no way of knowing whether or not the post office has postmarking every ballot so i think the answer to your question is probably they're being postmarked but there are but there is and confirmation or certainty that that's occurring in every case let me ask you another question if you have the that line were changed to a postmark rather than received what would that do to the humor deadline for individual yet this this is one of the problems that we raise in our papers and would would result and this is also part of the broader purcel issue which is there are these existing policy jurors and statutes including that here period so currently in arizona you have five days after the election to cure a ballot with a with a mismatch signature so the signatures don't match or if you have  now i don't want to spend too much time on the on the wii or a claim because i think our papers really address the argument i will i will just you know of a few things that mr john mentioned which is this this idea that the  used the wrong standard it's simply not the case at the trial or was requiring plane to get together somehow they were impacted differently than other rural voters ethnic minority groups were treated differently impacted and not counted to the same degree as white voters that is different than the received deadline and frankly the evidence of a sort of evidence that was presented in burdening their right to vote because other voters in arizona who simply based on geographical location may be suffering the same kind of slow mail delivery so i think that that the distinction that the court drew and what's been drawn court has any other questions for me i will submit the rest of my argument on the papers that we filed and respectfully request that the court affirm the trial or its order thank you thank you and yours no additional  said in line to one that the evidence shows disparities as the novel orders are protected class versus rural voters and non protected class so they went ahead and hard to hold these rural voters after delivery the lengthy this that it takes to get the whole top of the reservation and the fact that many navajo nation members have insufficient funds to travel to a post office additionally post office are generally not open for as many hours on must only show that they have less opportunity to vote as compared to other voters one of the other question we did under d s r x or expert did go ahead recent report of the damage here is less opportunity with the three screen balance delivery systems when you compare the appellant male time