Arizona Supreme Court rejects Hamadeh's bid, chastises his lawyers

PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court declined to take up Abe Hamadeh’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2022 attorney general election, at least at this point.

And now he and his attorneys are on the hook for some new legal fees.

Hamadeh sought high court intervention after contending Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen acted improperly in limiting the amount of time the 2022 Republican candidate had to prepare his legal arguments seeking to overturn his loss to Democrat Kris Mayes. He said that denied his attorneys the ability to find evidence that some people legally entitled to vote did not have their ballots counted.

Hamadeh lost to Mayes by 280 votes.

The new order written by Chief Justice Robert Brutinel simply said Hamadeh’s lawyers acted prematurely in going to the high court.

And, on top of that, they lied, he said.

He said Hamadeh’s legal team told the justices they had “diligently sought’’ a final ruling from Jantzen, setting the stage for an appeal.

But that assertion was false, attorneys for Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, who is a party to the case by virtue of his position, pointed out. Brutinel said Hamadeh and the Republican National Committee, working on his behalf, now concede the point.

He said that all makes Hamadeh ineligible to seek the special relief he wants directly from the Supreme Court. He told Hamadeh to follow the normal procedures and file “a proper appeal in the Court of Appeals,’’ saying he can ask for “expedited consideration.’’

Only after the appellate court has had its say — something that could take months — would the justices be willing to consider his arguments.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

“Misrepresented to this court”

All this will cost Hamadeh and his lawyers a yet-to-be-determined amount of money.

Brutinel said when deciding whether to assess legal fees against a losing party, courts determine the extent that party made an effort “to determine the validity of a claim.’’

“Petitioners were not only aware that they needed a final judgment to seek appellate relief but also misrepresented to this xxxx court that they had sought such relief when they had not done so,’’ the chief justice wrote.

“The special action unnecessarily expanded the proceedings and compelled respondents (Mayes and Fontes) to incur the unnecessary expense of filing their court-ordered responses,’’ he said. They are now entitled to have those expenses reimbursed by Hamadeh and his lawyers, Brutinel said. The next step is for them to file a statement of their costs.

“Refrain from disparaging”

As an aside of sorts, the chief justice urged all the lawyers involved in this controversial case to, in essence, play nice.

He pointed to some of the rhetoric in the filings. For example, there was a quote from Fontes’ attorneys that accused a “disgruntled vocal minority’’ of trying to “weaponize our courts, sow unfounded distrust in our election processes, malign our public servants, and undermine our democracy.’’

And Thomas Basile, writing for top Republican legislative leaders who asked the Supreme Court to grant Hamadeh’s bid for a new trial on his election challenge, accused Fontes of “churlish imperiousness’’ in rejecting Hamadeh’s attempt to reexamine some ballots.

“The court is mindful of the difficulties presented in this extraordinarily close election,’’ Brutinel wrote. “Notwithstanding these difficulties, the court advises both sides to focus on the important legal and factual issues presented here and refrain from disparaging their opponents.’’