OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Republican Kari Lake will file an appeal after a judge rejected her claims in a lawsuit that sought to overturn her election loss in the Arizona gubernatorial race to Democrat Katie Hobbs by around 17,000 votes. Hobbs, for her part, is joining Maricopa County’s motion seeking sanctions against Lake.
“Hobbs requested the court award her $36,990 in attorneys’ fees and expenses for the court proceedings attached to Lake’s challenge. The secretary hired Coppersmith Brockelman PLC attorney Andrew Gaona, who has been with the firm for 12 years, to represent her during an expedited election proceeding that, according to the filing, ‘required extensive work by counsel in a very short period,'” Fox News reported.
“The attorneys were required to draft a motion to dismiss, prepare for an evidentiary hearing, and participate in the two-day evidentiary hearing. When broken down, the fees are comprised of 94.3 hours worked by CB, totaling $31,090, plus an additional $5,900 for services retained from expert witness Ryan Macias,” the report added.
“As a result of the efforts of the Secretary’s counsel and the other Defendants, the Court denied Plaintiff’s remarkable request for relief in its entirety. Accordingly, the Secretary prevailed and achieved a total victory in this litigation. For the foregoing reasons, the Secretary respectfully requests that the Court award her $36,990 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and ‘expenses’ incurred in this action,” the filing from Maricopa County and Hobb’s stated.
Lake tweeted Saturday morning: “This Judge did not rule in our favor. However, for the sake of restoring faith and honesty in our elections, I will appeal his ruling.”
Judge Thompson wrote in his decision: “Every one of Plaintiff’s witnesses — and for that matter, Defendants’ witnesses as well — was asked about any personal knowledge of both intentional misconduct and intentional misconduct directed to impact the 2022 General Election. Every single witness before the Court disclaimed any personal knowledge of such misconduct. The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence.”
Over 200 people submitted statements to the court detailing their frustrating experiences trying to vote on Election Day in Maricopa County. However, Judge Thompson stated that many of those voters were still able to cast their ballots.
“This Court acknowledges the anger and frustration of voters who were subjected to inconvenience and confusion at voter centers as technical problems arose during the 2022 General Election,” Thompson wrote.
The AZ Mirror reported:
Lake relied on witnesses like cybersecurity expert Clay Parikh, who testified that issues with ballot-on-demand printers on Election Day were caused by a 19-inch ballot image being printed onto 20-inch paper. He opined that it was done intentionally and could not have happened by accident.
Maricopa County Co-Elections Director Scott Jarrett later explained that the smaller printing size happened after other printer problems had already cropped up on Election Day when techs changed the settings to “fit to print” while they were troubleshooting. Jarrett said it only happened at three voting centers and impacted 1,300 ballots, though Parikh claimed that he found the missized ballots in batches he inspected from six voting centers.
“If the ballot definitions (sizes) were changed, it stands to reason that every ballot for that particular definition printed on every machine so affected would be printed incorrectly,” Thompson wrote. “As Plaintiff’s next witness indicates, that was not the case on Election Day. In either event, Mr. Parikh acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge of any intent behind what he believes to be the error.”
Judge Thompson said that Lake’s team did not provide evidence proving voters were turned away or refused ballots on Election Day.
“No election in Arizona has ever been set aside, no result modified, because of a statistical estimate,” Thompson wrote, regarding Baris’ testimony. “Election contests are decided by votes, not by polling responses, and the Court has found no authority suggesting that exit polling ought to be used in this manner.”
“Plaintiff has no free-standing right to challenge election results based upon what Plaintiff believes – rightly or wrongly – went awry on Election Day,” Thompson wrote. “She must, as a matter of law, prove a ground that the legislature has provided as a basis for challenging an election.