Aguilera v. Fontes I

When Laurie Aguilera of Phoenix went to vote, she was provided with a Sharpie marker to mark her ballot. Afterward, the machine that reads the votes had trouble reading her ballot. She believed that her vote was not counted, and that others were probably also deprived of their votes in the same way. So, the next day after the election she sued election officials, calling for an inventory to be made of ballots that were rendered unreadable by the use of Sharpies so they could be cured and counted propertly.

The Trump Campaign and the Arizona Republican Party (ARP) sent lawyers to help Aguilera argue her case. But within a few days, Aguilera withdrew her case and instead applied to be a party to Trump Campaign v. Hobbs, a different election challenge case alleging mishandling of overvotes. Ultimately, Judge Daniel Kiley from the Hobbs case rejected her application to join that case, and she abandoned trying to be part of a bigger movement. She applied again in Aguilera v. Fontes II. Ultimately, she was not able to prove that her ballot went uncounted, was not able to find anyone else that believed that their votes were not counted due to the use of Sharpies, and was not able to identify anything that the courts could actually do for her.