PHOENIX — Whether Abe Hamadeh gets to challenge the election he lost by 511 votes could depend on what a judge thinks about claims some people used the wrong kind of pen to mark their ballots.
At a hearing Monday, Hamadeh’s attorney Tim La Sota noted there were about 50,000 people who cast a ballot in the general election who did not vote for either his client or for Democrat Kris Mayes for Arizona attorney general. There may be reasons to believe some of the nearly 2.6 million voters opted to skip that race, La Sota acknowledged.
But he said there is a chance the tabulation equipment simply could not read some votes based on the type of ink.
“We’re not saying the machine cannot read blue ink,’’ La Sota told Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen. “We’re saying it is less able to read blue ink. And in a race of this small of a margin, that could make the difference.’’
La Sota said allowing him to examine ballots from Maricopa, Pima and Navajo counties where there was no choice recorded in the race for attorney general would enable him to show if those people actually wanted to vote in that race, and to vote for the Republican contender and help him make up the deficit of 511 votes.
But there are a couple of problems with the theory, said Emily Craiger, representing Maricopa County. She said those start with the fact the instructions given to voters specifically tell them what kinds of ink they can use that the tabulators can read.
Beyond that, Craiger said the idea that the use of certain inks or pens affected only the race between Hamadeh and Mayes makes no sense.
“If that’s the case, unless a person is completing every race with a different color of pen or writing implement, then the entire ballot is not going to be read,’’ she said. The number of ballots with no visible markings is very small, “versus the 50,000 that the plaintiffs are alleging here,’’ she said.
And Craiger said there is no authority in law to allow for wholesale examination of ballots — even if county attorneys were able to segregate out those ballots with no marking for attorney general.
Attorney Daniel Barr, representing Mayes, told the judge there is something else to consider when deciding whether to allow an examination of ballots to scour for possible votes for Hamadeh by people who didn’t use the prescribed inks or pens.
“These people were instructed by the head of the (Arizona) Republican Party, by Kelli Ward, by Mark Finchem (the losing GOP candidate for secretary of state), to deliberately use blue-colored ink and other things to mess up the ballots,’’ Barr said.
Ward, in a Twitter post on election morning, told people waiting in line to vote to “use your own pen.’’ Finchem, in his own post, also told people to “bring blue ink pens.’’
“That these people chose, for whatever reason, to disregard election officials and use some other color ink pen, that’s on them,’’ Barr said. “That certainly isn’t any misconduct by any election official.’’
In general, Arizona law allows election results to be challenged only if there is evidence of fraud — something Hamadeh does not allege — or there was intentional misconduct. And even in that case, Barr said, there has to be some evidence these events would alter the outcome of the election.
La Sota has made a series of allegations, including that some people did not get to vote because of problems in Maricopa County with on-site tabulation machines unable to scan and read the ballots printed out at voting centers. Instead, they left without casting a ballot, he said.
But Barr said there’s something missing from the claim: the actual names of anyone denied the ability to vote.
“The fact that they can’t do that speaks volumes to the weakness of their complaint,’’ he said.
Barr said the same problem exists in a separate contention that some people who were otherwise eligible to vote were denied even the opportunity to cast a “provisional ballot,’’ one which is set aside until that person’s registration status can be verified.
“The complaint does not identify even one voter who was denied a provisional ballot, or any facts on where or when this supposedly happened,’’ he said.
La Sota also claimed Maricopa County allowed some early ballots to be counted even though the signatures on the envelopes did not match the voter registration records. Instead, county officials made use of other documents with a voter’s signature to compare with what is on the envelope, a process Hamadeh’s attorney said is not legal.
Barr disagreed with his legal contention.
Anyway, he said, the procedure being used by Maricopa County was known for years and is approved in the Elections Procedures Manual. Barr said if Hamadeh really believed that process violates the law he should have challenged it before the election, not now.
Jantzen promised a ruling by Tuesday afternoon whether to allow Hamadeh to make his claims at a full-blown trial or to dismiss them now.
No matter what the judge rules, the margin of difference in the race will require a recount, though that is done using the same tabulation equipment used in the election.
The House Jan. 6 committee urged the Justice Department on Monday to bring criminal charges against former President Donald Trump and his allies, wrapping up its investigation of the violent 2021 Capitol insurrection with what lawmakers called a “roadmap to justice." As they cap one of the most exhaustive and aggressive congressional probes in memory, the panel’s seven Democrats and two Republicans are recommending criminal charges against Trump and associates who helped him launch a multifaceted pressure campaign to try to overturn his 2020 election loss. The panel also released a lengthy summary of its final report, with findings that Trump engaged in a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the election. The committee alleged violations of four criminal statutes by Trump, in both the run-up to the riot and during the insurrection itself, as it recommended the former president for prosecution to the Justice Department. The charges recommended by the committee are conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, conspiracy to make a false statement and aiding an insurrection.
