PHOENIX — The attorney for Kari Lake and Mark Finchem admitted Tuesday his clients have no actual evidence votes were improperly counted by the electronic tabulating machines they are challenging.
They also aren’t alleging the counting equipment has been hacked, attorney Andrew Parker conceded.
But he told a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, meeting in Phoenix, that doesn’t matter. He said just the mere possibility that vote tallies can be altered is sufficient to send the case back to a trial judge and give Lake and Finchem the opportunity to seek a ruling outlawing use of the devices.
“It should alarm you to the point where it is a real threat, it is a credible threat,’’ Parker said.
The appellate judges, however, appeared unpersuaded they should allow Lake and Finchem to pursue their case based on what is simply a list of things that could go wrong, versus any actual proof.
Judge Andrew Hurwitz said Parker isn’t even contending that machines inherently miscount votes.
“In other words, if they’re perfectly observed and perfectly protected, there’s no allegation that they miscount votes,’’ Hurwitz said. “They’re a much more reliable way of counting votes than counting by hand.’’
What Parker’s claim comes down to, the judge said, is that some “outside actor could get into the system’’ and somehow manipulate the results, rather than any evidence that has happened in Arizona.
Parker did not disagree, but said that doesn’t end the threat to elections.
“Many of these machines are made overseas by foreign enemies of ours,’’ Parker said. “What if that manufacturer puts into the system an undetected device that is filled with malware?’’
“That’s speculation”
That argument did not impress Hurwitz, who called it a bunch of “what ifs.’’
“That’s speculation,’’ and not actual proof, the judge said.
Hurwitz said anyone making such allegations of manufacturers tampering with elections is likely to get sued, as happened when Dominion Voting Systems got $787 million out of Fox for claiming Dominion was involved in voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Lake and Finchem had sought an order ahead of the 2022 election — when Lake was running for governor and Finchem was a candidate for secretary of state, both as Republicans — to require ballots to be counted by hand.
The case didn’t get that far. U.S. District Court Judge Tuchi ruled their claims that machine counting can product inaccurate results were little more than speculation on their part, backed only by “vague’’ allegations about electronic voting systems generally. Tuchi said they produced no evidence a full hand count would be more accurate.
Parker said, though, that if the appeals court sends the case back to Tuchi, he would be able to present evidence about why machines should be outlawed and show that they are less trustworthy than hand counts. If nothing else, he said, the danger from machine hacking is greater than that of cheating by hand.
“Exponentially, people can get into the system through a number of different manipulations and vulnerabilities,’’ Parker said. He said there are “serious experts’’ who have made those same points. “And it’s being ignored by the courts,’’ he said. “And the courts are shutting down review. Why?’’
That still leaves the fact that everything Lake and Finchem have alleged to this point in their case to Tuchi has been about what these “serious experts’’ have said about other computers and other machines, with no hard evidence about the tabulators used in Arizona being compromised.
Parker brushed those questions aside, citing the claims of those “experts’’ about how machines can be hacked and that security safeguards can be overridden. While he does not have proof that occurred in Arizona, he said all that, taken together, is enough to get Lake and Finchem their day in court.
“Hand voting can be manipulated”
Hurwitz said there’s one big problem with the ban on electronic vote tabulation that Lake and Finchem are seeking, even if they could show the machines are unreliable or subject to hacking: Is hand counting the alternative?
“We all know that hand voting can be manipulated,’’ the judge said.
“Votes have been thrown in the basket and people have ignored them,’’ Hurwitz continued. “We know presidents of the United States have been elected because ballots have been thrown out and not counted correctly, or corrupt county recorders have provided incorrect counts.’’
The judge said if just the possibility of manipulation is enough to declare a method of counting ballots to be unconstitutional, as Parker is alleging, that also would allow someone to seek a court order banning hand counts.
Parker did not dispute that. The difference, he argued, is the breadth of the potential harm. In essence, he contends, the amount of harm that could be caused by manipulation of a hand count is far less than what is possible through machines that could have been deliberately reprogrammed or hacked.
Hurwitz wasn’t the only one questioning Parker about his request to allow Lake and Finchem to present their arguments based simply on things that could go wrong.
Judge Andrew Gould said more is needed. He asked whether Parker had any actual evidence that hand counting is more accurate than machine counts.
Parker acknowledged the only thing he has is an allegation to that effect.
Courts found “vote was accurately counted”
Hurwitz said there’s another flaw in Parker’s claim that just the mere allegations of what could go wrong give Lake and Finchem the legal right to contest the use of voting machines as unreliable.
He noted that both have filed challenges to the 2022 election results in state courts. More to the point, Hurwitz said that every legal challenge they made to overturn the results has been dismissed.
“The state courts have found the vote was accurately counted,’’ Hurwitz said, meaning no evidence anyone was harmed or anyone’s constitutional rights were violated.
Kara Karlson, an assistant Arizona attorney general, told the appellate judges there are safeguards built in, such as “logic and accuracy’’ tests of machines both before and after the election.
Hurwitz also said there may be another, more technical, problem with the lawsuit.
He said it seeks to ban the use of voting machines only in Maricopa and Pima counties.
“So, in the rest of the state, you think electronic tabulation works fine?’’ Hurwitz asked. He said if Lake and Finchem believe the use of the machines is a constitutional violation they should be seeking to prohibit it statewide, which they are not.
Even if the appellate judges agree to send the case back to Tuchi — and even if he were to eventually conclude the use of electronic tabulation is illegal — none of that would help either candidate. Parker acknowledged that the only relief sought would be prospective only, with no demand to re-run the 2022 election that Lake and Fontes lost.
That raises a parallel question.
In filing suit ahead of the 2022 election, Lake and Finchem said part of the reason they have standing to challenge use of the machines was their status as candidates. Hurwitz pointed out both lost their races and are not candidates for any upcoming election.
The judges gave no indication when they will rule.
Get your morning recap of today's local news and read the full stories here: tucne.ws/morning
