is the parents we may chrissy thank you in apologies for now that this this case is about whether an american citizen has a remedy in state and local election officials disregarded mister isabelle who based on that let's also assume that the legislative history of the n b r a's did just that congress intentionally omitted monetary relief as an available read brevity is based on what i have just described we but i think that i mean just ask another question i mean we're trying to understand i am trying to understand the presidential effect of the a t p order here and judge logan address  violated in b r eight he declined to require the secretary to ensure that voters who registered on that october th day were eligible to vote in the november sixteen election so just trying to understand what you think the other factor judge logan's order is on your argument that mister isabel was eligible to vote in the november th two thousand and sixteen election because arizona issued a even election procedures manual that was reviewed by the attorney general's office in signed by the governor this time in that manual said that the deadline was that registrations received the day after columbus day thousand i think what you said was when ballots were received on october th they were counted which suggests to me that they were mailed and then maybe that circumstance was talking about things being posted before the deadline as opposed to a person these are positions that are elected and so a new person in a position to take a different interpretation of the statute i'm not sure how that means that what happened here was was a violation that they denied qualified residents the right to vote and it and we can and we can tell arizona what it's law means know that arizona has has that with the law in the i mean i mean the one thing we do have and i don't think it's from general they're right on but your argument completely circular because you said that if that was two thousand and eighteen and it was relying on a t p i've given you the premise what happens if i think a t p is wrong i mean obviously the secretary as the secretary is trying to do thousand and seventeen and that was one of the reasons that the manual did it say what it say it said is that if this happened today that that they would be would be moved to the next business day but but that's true in two thousand and twenty it was not before so i think that's about all on that but right off the bat we start with the point that you know look mister isabelle's registration was simply not timely under state law and i think that does undergird pretty much the entire lawsuit and you know sort of getting into the section one thousand nine hundred and three and some of the cases cited i mean you know these cases are from one hundred years ago when when somebody showed up to vote and they were denied that right because they were african american i mean these cases don't are nothing approaching what happened here i mean we're still sitting here four years after the general election we've had another intervening jennifer presidential election and we're still talking about what was the proper date i also think it's a little bit disingenuous too for mister scharf to say look i mean you know these defendants run notice that the deadline was a certain date and those  order in hand to suggest that that yeah they're on notice and even though the court didn't order it they should go ahead and count the votes i mean i think we're just in a much different factual situation i think there's a reason why i like this as as never  come up in terms of facts that are even approaching this and monetary damages just aren't a ward of all let me talk a little bit about some of the practicalities i mean if you in arizona like like most states you sign early ballots and what happens the now we're talking about millions of these early ballots mail ballots whatever you want to call them the the county recorder has to go through and verify the signature and i can just tell you that that they don't always see if the signature matches then it gets counted if it doesn't match they try to get ahold of the voter with millions of ballots and and human beings trying to match these you know they don't always get that right and some people ballots aren't they don't get counted even though they quote should have they was actually cast by the by the actual voter but signature change whichever i mean i think that it's in a very difficult while i think it would be a very bad precedent i mean  i think you'd be talking about all kinds of different areas here that federal courts would now be getting into with monetary damages on just you know sort of every day decisions that that have to be made with regard to election and if we look at the we look at things like the n p r a i mean they're there they're supposed to be remedial they're supposed to be so that that we can get these things right sort of going forward and now we're if if we're going to say that look if there's any kind of issue with a vote a vote should have counted but it didn't and now that's going to be a cause of action and obviously i disagree with the whole premise that the the votes should have counted but but if we're going to go that route we're going to have election officials who are going to be concentrating on on the elections they're going to be concentrating on these lawsuits they're going to be having to pay out judgments i mean it goes against sort of the the very fundamentals of these laws that were passed  at the outset i think that that's obviously clear and that it does support if they probably don't need to get to it because the check these clear it does before the defendant here the one of the things i think one of the mistakes the shark has made is that he's sort of f if they feel that it's been violated but it is nonetheless is a scheme and congress took the time to to put this even here where require is that if if there's been a violation that you send a notice of that  violation to the to the achieved election official that stayed involved and they get time to secure it or fix it or respond and then after that you can file a lawsuit but it seems to contemplate that you go through this administrative process and try to get it fixed that way well if you could just go straight to one thousand nine hundred and eighty three action and why in the world when congress included that entire scheme i mean there's absolutely no reason for it mister sharp said when he argued that we've never you know we've never come meant to add rights it is not meant to impair any rights that exists now and and and someone came along and probably said well you know i'm concerned that this is going to result in monetary judgments but you know i'm also concerned that the law you know i don't want anything in here being construed that it is impairing a right that exists today and so that they put the savings clause in there i think it is similar to some of the savings clauses i think see clamors this is probably single application a lot might have so i think it's just it's sort of a natural reaction we're going to put it in here when i was there but in the legislative history no monetary damages but we're also going to say look you know that this isn't meant to impair any any rights that you have now but it doesn't mean that that we're tacking monetary damages on to this remedial statu law period which is twenty nine that just didn't happen here that's just not a fact that that even accepting everything that mr isabel is true that exists here that that he submitted he registered on the  there's nothing even in the allegations that he attempted to register any sooner so i think that's also an important fact that i think that you know it also talks about that it has to be postmarked if you kind of follow the logic that unless you move the date back to an earlier date the deadline day you know you have to say well you know shouldn't the shouldn't the postal service be be marking things on sunday and columbus day and i don't think that that really there's any best authority in concluding that some allegation of discrimination chromes conduct is absolutely required well your honor i think that i think the how which we cited does essentially stand for the proposition  that you know if you don't have a right to and to an error free election i think that mister isabelle is going a little bit beyond just the i think what he is asking is in fact or a perfect election and then there ancient between those things and i think that's why the pow or came out the way they did is is just there can't be a right to a perfect election i mean in this case obviously that you know there's the initial disagreement over whether mister mister isabel was properly registered we don't think he was and and even if you say the date should have been october th as somebody i forget which which of the judges was that on the panel pointed out he wasn't he just wasn't registered even if he should have been even if that's what should have happened but the court the mister judge logan was invited to make that ruling and he declined so he just wasn't wasn't properly registered under any set of facts so i think that you know it's a little bit like like let's judge lanza said i mean there there are undoubtedly is you know he talked about the united states classic you know if