A Mojave County judge on Friday denied failed attorney general nominee Abe Hamade’s motion for a retrial, citing a lack of evidence and time constraints under the law governing the campaign, the decision was made today. announced the reason behind the

Hamade had asked the court to hold a new trial after a statewide recount saw Attorney General Chris Mays win by a narrow margin of 280 votes. Hamade’s lawyers argued that given the recount results and the opportunity to further investigate the undervote and provisional ballots, the court could be presented with enough votes to remove Mays from the House.

But Judge Lee Jansen ruled that the statutes governing the campaign “preclude the filing of new cases with extended discovery.”

He wrote that Hamade had already had the opportunity to inspect ballots in his first election in the campaign.

Mr. Jantsen held a trial in December over Mr. Hamade’s first campaign, but it turned out he failed to produce enough evidence.

“The bottom line is you just haven’t proven your point,” Jantzen said at the trial.

Hamade’s attorney, Jen Wright, then filed a motion for retrial in January. And during her oral argument, she argued that “newly discovered evidence” could attract enough votes to install Mr. Hamade as “a constitutionally and democratically elected attorney general.” bottom.

Wright estimated the misread rate from ballot checks ahead of Hamade’s first trial, arguing that there could be more than 466 uncounted votes for Hamade.

But Mayes’ lawyers pointed to electoral tactics and said Hamade’s lawyers had no evidence other than a few ballots. Mays’ attorney, Alexis Dannemann, said the law does not allow “fishing expeditions.”

Jantzen eventually agreed. He determined that campaign rules prohibited the expansion of disclosure.

And Jantzen wrote that even if he misinterpreted the election law, he found that Hamade was not well positioned for a new trial under the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

Jantzen said there was no wrongdoing in the initial proceedings and no newly discovered evidence that could not be presented at trial.

He acknowledged the fact that recount results were not available to Hamade’s attorneys during the trial, but reaffirmed that court orders barred the county and public officials from disclosing discrepancies.

Jantzen further found that the claim that the error in Pinal County was corrected by recounting and that the error was repeated in other counties was not supported by any evidence.

He also referred to the 1917 Arizona Supreme Court case of Hunt v. Campbell (a case in which a successful campaign resulted in the ouster of a sitting governor mid-term), and that the statute governing the schedule of the campaign was this. He pointed out that it was enacted after the incident.

“If a decree existed, it would have been regulated in 1917,” Jantsen wrote.

Hamade confirmed that he plans to appeal the loss to the Arizona Supreme Court after the first judgment was delivered on Friday.

“We think the situation is very simple. The contest was never as close as it is now. If all the legal votes were counted, I would win this Attorney General election,” he said. said in a statement.

In a statement released today, Hamade reaffirmed his intention to appeal.

“The court ruling is an invitation to appeal and we will do just that,” he said.

T.