Hamadeh not entitled to new trial on election challenge, Mayes says

A lawyer for Attorney General Kris Mayes says Abe Hamadeh is not entitled to his requested do-over of his legal bid to install him in Mayes’ post.

The plea by the Republican candidate for a new trial is both too little and too late, Mayes’ attorney Alexis Danneman told Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen. Democrat Mayes defeated Hamadeh in the November election.

His request is too little, Danneman said, because Hamadeh’s lawyers are not claiming they have new or relevant evidence about how the election was conducted that was not available to them last month. She said he also failed to identify any irregularity that occurred, “let alone one that probably affected the verdict,’’ the legal standard for seeking to invalidate court action.

Danneman said it’s also too late because state laws set strict timelines on how quickly election cases must be heard. She told Jantzen that Hamadeh waited too long to make his request.

Also, “Kris Mayes has taken the oath of office and, so, possesses all the rights and power and is subject to all the liabilities, duties and obligations of the Attorney General’s Office,’’ Danneman said. “No provision of the statutes authorizes this court to remove her.’’

After a brief trial last month, Jantzen refused to overturn the result of the race for attorney general.

“The bottom line is, you just haven’t proven your case,’’ the judge told Hamadeh’s attorney Tim La Sota. He said any mistakes that may have been made in how ballots were counted “were not enough to overcome the presumption the court has to have in election cases ... that the election was done correctly.’’

Since that time a legally required recount of votes produced 507 ballots that apparently had not been counted the first time around. And while Hamadeh picked up 392 of those, it still left Mayes the winner by just 280 votes out of more than 2.5 million ballots cast.

Now lawyers for Hamadeh and the Republican National Committee want to conduct a “meticulous’’ physical examination and hand count of ballots — and “without the rush conditions.’’

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

One issue, they said, relates to human errors made in the initial count in Pinal County that resulted in uncounted or miscounted votes when the certified results were reported. These, however, were not discovered until the recount, which became necessary because of the closeness of the vote between Hamadeh and Mayes.

They contend if the human errors in Pinal County repeat themselves elsewhere, that could change the outcome of the election. They want to be able to present this evidence at a new trial.

Danneman, in her response, urged Jantzen to reject the request, pointing out La Sota already was permitted to examine more than 2,300 ballots from Maricopa, Pima and Navajo counties. That inspection showed there would have been a net gain of three votes for Mayes.

“Though plaintiffs might not have liked the outcome of their ballot inspection, they have already received everything the statutes permitted,’’ she wrote. “Granting this relief is plainly prohibited by law.’’

What happened in Pinal County, Danneman said, is legally irrelevant.

“Plaintiffs cannot show that a mistake in Pinal County — which has now been corrected — would have changed the result of this case, or the election,’’ she said. “Beyond speculation, they provide no support that similar errors occurred in other counties (and were not identified during the recount).’’

Jantzen has not said when he will rule.