Finchem signals intent to appeal lost election challenge

Finchem’s attorney filed a notice with Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian that he intends to seek Supreme Court review of her findings. Julian ruled he failed to present any evidence that the outcome of the race — and Finchem’s loss by more than 120,000 votes — was affected by misconduct or fraud.

But as of Friday afternoon Finchem’s attorney, Daniel McCauley, had yet to file any petition to the state’s high court, much less any basis for the justices to set aside Julian’s verdict.

Finchem did not return repeated calls seeking comment or specifics. Instead, he sent out an email to supporters demanding “perp walks’’ for those whom he alleges suppressed votes on Election Day or committed election fraud. His email asked for money, saying any donations will go to help him pay off his campaign debt. In filing the suit that Julian dismissed, Finchem contended Election Day problems with on-site printers in Maricopa County resulted in people being disenfranchised when they could not get their ballots immediately read by tabulators.

County officials pointed out that, whatever the source of the problems, voters had an alternative: to put their ballots into a sealed box to be counted later at a central location. Finchem argued that was not an acceptable alternative for people who may have waited in line an hour or more to vote.

“These citizens wanted to assure themselves that their vote counted, and they had an absolute right to such an assurance,’’ his attorneys wrote. “Instead, they were offered weak and unsatisfying alternatives, like depositing their ballot into some mysterious Box 3 with the assurance their votes would be counted later.’’

Finchem also argued that Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs acted improperly in telling supervisors in Cochise and Mohave counties that they had to formally certify the election results by the statutory deadline or face possible criminal charges. He said her role in that and other activities amounted to “self-dealing’’ because she also was a candidate for governor.

In her 13-page order, Julian said: “Honest mistakes or mere omissions on the part of election officials, or irregularities in director matters, even though gross, if not fraudulent, will not void an election, unless they affect the result, or at least render it uncertain. A valid election contest may not rely upon public rumor or upon evidence about which a mere theory, suspicion, or conjecture may be maintained.’’

In this case, the judge wrote, there is not even evidence of mistakes. “Mr. Finchem does not allege that any of the votes cast were actually illegal,’’ she said. Nor, said Julian, did he present evidence that ballots were cast by people ineligible to vote.

“What Mr. Finchem argues is a case of missing votes,’’ the judge wrote, meaning his allegations that people were disenfranchised by the problems at vote centers and left without casting a ballot. That is insufficient to void an election, she ruled.