PHOENIX β Failed gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake is making another last-ditch effort to overturn the election, this time criticizing a court that rejected her claims. In legal papers filed Wednesday with Arizona Supreme Court, Lake claims the Court of Appeals not only ignored legal precedents but ratified what she called a Maricopa County decision to ignore laws on chain-of-custody requirements for ballots and for testing certain election equipment. More telling, Lakeβs attorney, Bryan Blehm, said the appellate judgesβ decision that Lake must have βclear and convincing evidenceββ of misconduct in an election to set aside the result βeffectively immunizes election officialsβ noncompliance with Arizonaβs election laws.ββ Official results of the November election show Republican Lake lost to Democrat Katie Hobbs by 17,117 votes. But Blehm already is setting the stage for seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court if the Arizona justices reject Lakeβs claims. He contends that, aside from allegations state election laws were violated, there are questions of whether the election was handled in a way that violated federal constitutional provisions of equal protection. The new filing is largely a rehash of the claims that were presented to β and rejected by β both a trial judge and the Court of Appeals. Lake contends a private company under contract with Maricopa County injected more than 35,000 ballots into the system before returning the ballots to county officials for tabulation.
She also said the stateβs most populous county failed to conduct legally mandated tests of the tabulators used at its 223 Election Day vote centers. That led to problems, Lake said, at two-thirds of those vote centers where ballots printed on site often could not be read, causing βmassive disruptionsββ and βhours-long lines.ββ She claimed that disenfranchised βthousands of predominantly Republican votersββ based on her argument that Republicans are more likely to wait until Election Day to cast their ballots than Democrats, who are more likely to cast early ballots. Lake wants the Arizona Supreme Court to either declare her the winner or order a new election. Blehm said Supreme Court precedents say compliance with election statutes is mandatory. Tied to that, he said, are prior court rulings which he said support the premise that evidence of violations affecting election results, or at least rendering them uncertain, are enough to void an election. The law does not require, according to Blehm, that Lake present proof of fraud. Nor, he said, need she prove by the βclear and convincing evidenceββ standard that any problems did, in fact, alter the final outcome, despite the Court of Appealsβ conclusions to the contrary when it threw out Lakeβs case. βIf allowed to stand, the (appellate court) opinion will make commonplace the type of official arrogance exemplified by Maricopaβs blaming of Republicans for voting on Election day,ββ Blehm wrote. That refers to comments by Tom Liddy, a lawyer for the county, who said Lakeβs campaign and the Arizona Republican Party were complicit in Election Day problems by casting doubt on the validity of early and mail-in ballots. Liddy said that resulted in not just a higher Election Day turnout, but in more than 290,000 people bringing their ballots directly to polling places that day. βThatβs political malpractice,ββ Liddy said when Lake first brought her claims before a trial judge. βYou reap what you sow.ββ Blehm said statements like that should convince the justices to review the lower court rulings against Lake. βPublic trust in elections is at an all-time low,ββ he wrote in his petition to the Arizona Supreme Court. βDecisions such as the (appellate court) opinion only serve to further erode that trust.ββ He also claimed there are βundisputed factsββ and βviolations of lawββ showing that the results, at least from Maricopa County, should be set aside. Lakeβs filing also repeats claims from her original lawsuit that Maricopa County failed to follow signature-verification requirements in reviewing early ballot envelopes, a failure she contends allowed tens of thousands of ballots to be counted. She didnβt get a chance to present any evidence to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson. He ruled that Lake knew about the countyβs procedures for reviewing signatures long before the November election. Thompson said any claim that did not comply with the law should have been filed before the election, not afterwards, a conclusion upheld by the appellate court. Blehm urged the stateβs high court to set that decision aside. He said Lake couldnβt have known about the problem until βwhistleblowersββ who were conducting the verification came forward after the election with evidence. There is no legal requirement for the justices to grant Lake a hearing. They also are empowered to review the record and, if they agree with the lower courts, simply affirm those rulings.
PHOENIX β Failed gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake is making another last-ditch effort to overturn the election, this time criticizing a court that rejected her claims.
In legal papers filed Wednesday with Arizona Supreme Court, Lake claims the Court of Appeals not only ignored legal precedents but ratified what she called a Maricopa County decision to ignore laws on chain-of-custody requirements for ballots and for testing certain election equipment.
More telling, Lakeβs attorney, Bryan Blehm, said the appellate judgesβ decision that Lake must have βclear and convincing evidenceββ of misconduct in an election to set aside the result βeffectively immunizes election officialsβ noncompliance with Arizonaβs election laws.ββ
Official results of the November election show Republican Lake lost to Democrat Katie Hobbs by 17,117 votes.
But Blehm already is setting the stage for seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court if the Arizona justices reject Lakeβs claims. He contends that, aside from allegations state election laws were violated, there are questions of whether the election was handled in a way that violated federal constitutional provisions of equal protection.
The new filing is largely a rehash of the claims that were presented to β and rejected by β both a trial judge and the Court of Appeals.
Lake contends a private company under contract with Maricopa County injected more than 35,000 ballots into the system before returning the ballots to county officials for tabulation.
She also said the stateβs most populous county failed to conduct legally mandated tests of the tabulators used at its 223 Election Day vote centers. That led to problems, Lake said, at two-thirds of those vote centers where ballots printed on site often could not be read, causing βmassive disruptionsββ and βhours-long lines.ββ
She claimed that disenfranchised βthousands of predominantly Republican votersββ based on her argument that Republicans are more likely to wait until Election Day to cast their ballots than Democrats, who are more likely to cast early ballots.
Lake wants the Arizona Supreme Court to either declare her the winner or order a new election.
Blehm said Supreme Court precedents say compliance with election statutes is mandatory. Tied to that, he said, are prior court rulings which he said support the premise that evidence of violations affecting election results, or at least rendering them uncertain, are enough to void an election.
The law does not require, according to Blehm, that Lake present proof of fraud. Nor, he said, need she prove by the βclear and convincing evidenceββ standard that any problems did, in fact, alter the final outcome, despite the Court of Appealsβ conclusions to the contrary when it threw out Lakeβs case.
βIf allowed to stand, the (appellate court) opinion will make commonplace the type of official arrogance exemplified by Maricopaβs blaming of Republicans for voting on Election day,ββ Blehm wrote.
That refers to comments by Tom Liddy, a lawyer for the county, who said Lakeβs campaign and the Arizona Republican Party were complicit in Election Day problems by casting doubt on the validity of early and mail-in ballots. Liddy said that resulted in not just a higher Election Day turnout, but in more than 290,000 people bringing their ballots directly to polling places that day.
βThatβs political malpractice,ββ Liddy said when Lake first brought her claims before a trial judge. βYou reap what you sow.ββ
Blehm said statements like that should convince the justices to review the lower court rulings against Lake.
βPublic trust in elections is at an all-time low,ββ he wrote in his petition to the Arizona Supreme Court. βDecisions such as the (appellate court) opinion only serve to further erode that trust.ββ
He also claimed there are βundisputed factsββ and βviolations of lawββ showing that the results, at least from Maricopa County, should be set aside.
Lakeβs filing also repeats claims from her original lawsuit that Maricopa County failed to follow signature-verification requirements in reviewing early ballot envelopes, a failure she contends allowed tens of thousands of ballots to be counted.
She didnβt get a chance to present any evidence to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson. He ruled that Lake knew about the countyβs procedures for reviewing signatures long before the November election. Thompson said any claim that did not comply with the law should have been filed before the election, not afterwards, a conclusion upheld by the appellate court.
Blehm urged the stateβs high court to set that decision aside. He said Lake couldnβt have known about the problem until βwhistleblowersββ who were conducting the verification came forward after the election with evidence.
There is no legal requirement for the justices to grant Lake a hearing. They also are empowered to review the record and, if they agree with the lower courts, simply affirm those rulings.