Abe Hamade (right) speaks as Chris Mays looks on at the Candidate Forum hosted by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce on Sept. 15, 2022. Photo by Gage Skidmore (Retouched) | flicker/CC BY-SA 2.0

Abraham Hamadeh was denied a third challenge after a Mojave County Judge ruled that he lacked both the evidence and the legal basis to overturn his 2022 loss.

Republican Attorney General candidate Hamade narrowly failed to win the position by just 280 votes. Fueled by conservative anger over election day issues in Maricopa County, Mr. Hamade immediately went to court to challenge the campaign, claiming election fraud and falsely denying ballots was the cause of his defeat. chanted. his first challenge thrown out A second attempt was filed soon after and brought to court for violating the schedule governing the election campaign, but was ultimately sentenced. was denied Because they didn’t fulfill their burden of proof.

When an automatic statewide recount of his campaign revealed discrepancies that narrowed Democrat Chris Mays’ lead over Hamade (previously thought to be 511 votes), the Republican candidate said: started the policy. 3rd attempt, argued that the new information justified another trial. Most of the votes that narrowed down the contest came from Pinal County. Found hundreds of miscounted ballots after the election.

But Mojave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantsen disagreed. Jantzen issued the following statement on Friday: short-term dismissal Regarding Mr. Hamade’s request for a new trial.on monday he revealed his reasoning.

Request disqualified due to time and ballot inspection constraints

Jantzen said campaigns are inherently fast-paced, and the law governing campaigns does not allow lengthy deliberations. State law requires lawsuits challenging the results of the election to be filed within five days of a statewide rally, trial must begin no later than 15 days later, and a judge to direct a decision immediately. All of this happened during the Hamadeh regime. second lawsuit.

Jantzen also rejected Hamade’s request to inspect more ballots to make his case.and Pre-trial hearing in MayHamade’s attorneys say more than 1,000 provisional ballots, including hundreds of votes belonging to residents whose voter registration was incorrectly submitted to another county, were rejected by Maricopa County election officials due to an Arizona Department of Transportation Service Arizona issue. claimed to have been mistakenly discarded. Self-service website and Arizona voter registration database.

But no evidence was presented, and lawyers lobbied for permission to search for evidence by further ballot inspections. Mr. Jansen said, particularly after Mr. Hamade’s second appeal granted limited inspections and failed to provide satisfactory evidence for his claims, such a permit would be out of the conditions permitted by state law. Said it would be a deviation.

“While plaintiffs have alleged problems with provisional ballots from the inception of this action, the merits hearing did not present material evidence of specific problems,” Jantsen wrote. “Plaintiffs are now requesting additional discovery to investigate whether problems exist with provisional ballots. Only limited discoveries are allowed in the campaign.”

No new information means no new exams

The only way to grant permission for a new trial is under the auspices of rules of procedure, but Mr. Jantsen said Mr. Hamade’s case did not meet that standard either. Under Arizona’s Code of Civil Procedure No. 59, if new information comes to light that was available at the time of the previous trial but not available during due diligence and could lead to litigation, new information may be filed. judgment can be brought. difference in election results.

Hamade’s third challenge relied heavily on Rule 59, with discrepancies uncovered in a statewide recount and a second list of provisional voters requested by Maricopa County delivered after the December trial. claimed to justify the trial of

Attorneys for Mays said the public records request filed in Maricopa County was delayed and Hamade’s campaign will hold a provisional vote to strengthen their case, at least from November 2022, during the initial challenge. He countered that he knew he needed more information on the matter. . Jantzen seems to agree with that assessment.

“Evidence of a potential problem with provisional ballots and people with multiple addresses presented during oral argument was information that could have been discovered in November and December if due diligence was exercised,” he said. I wrote.

Jantzen rejected Hamade’s claim that the discrepancies found in Pinal county necessarily meant discrepancies in other counties. The same recount that identified the problem in Pinal County fixed the final count, and no problems were identified elsewhere. The final count also secured Mays’ victory.

“Records reflect that the recount corrected the error and 63 votes were counted,” Jantzen wrote. “[Hamade]speculates that the mistake may have been repeated in other counties, but there is no evidence.”

appeal on the horizon

Jantzen denied the request, but left the door open for an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

“Plaintiffs can appeal the decisions rendered in this court … but new trials with extended discovery are not available under the roadmap set by Congress,” he wrote. .

and Make a statement on social media Shortly after Jansen’s dismissal was announced last week, Mr. Hamade reiterated his belief that he was the legitimate winner of the Attorney General election.

“The contest has never been as close as it is now. If all legal votes were counted, I would win this Attorney General election race,” he wrote.

And on Monday, Mr. Hamade vowed to continue his legal battle.

“The court’s ruling is an invitation to appeal, and we intend to do just that,” he said. tweeted.

post Judge: No evidence means there will be no new trial against Hamadeh to overturn the election loss. arizona mirror.