Abe Hamade’s third attempt to challenge the losing election should be ousted from court for ignoring state law and failing to provide evidence for his claims, according to his Democratic opponents. A lawyer for Chris Mays said:
Hamadeh, who was named Republican Attorney General two weeks ago, asked the judge to allow him a new trialclaim that information from State Recount And a request for public records proved that the midterm elections were so badly mishandled that he could not race. Done. the judge dismissed it, concluding that there was no evidence.
People are also reading…
A previous attempt in November to challenge the results of the Attorney General’s election campaign Also rejected for being prematurely submitted.
Hamade’s latest attempt is similarly ineffective, writes Alexis Dannemann, the attorney representing Mays. latest court documentsNo new trials or lengthy deliberations are permitted, she argued, because election challenges are strictly governed by state law and challenges must be resolved as quickly as possible. The entire canvas must be filed within five days of its completion, the trial must begin within 15 days thereafter, and the presiding judge must register the judgment “immediately,” as directed by state law. must be
The remedy Hamade is demanding is also not an option, writes Dannemann. Danemann denounced the request as outrageous and far from what the law would allow, and said that Hamade’s campaign required many votes to be tested to make their case. At the trial in December, Mojave County Superior Court Judge F. Lee Jantzen said: More than 2,000 ballots considered in Maricopa County alonealong with additional testing in Pima and Navajo counties.
“Plaintiffs may not have liked the outcome of the ballot test, but they have already received everything the law allows,” writes Dannemann. “What they are now demanding is that a court order (post-trial) ‘a meticulous review of all ballots and a complete inspection of all ballots with no rush conditions’ is allowed anywhere. It’s a violation of Arizona’s election law.”
Even if a new trial were warranted, Hamade would have to prove that he had new information that was available to him at the time of the trial, or show error during the trial. Dannemann argued that it must be proved that there is a basis for it. Courts that influenced the final judgment. He does neither, writes Dannemann.
Hamade, in his motion for a new trial, said information from recounts that narrowed the gap between him and Mays from 511 to 280 when Pinal County identified a discrepancy in the votes would not have been seen elsewhere in the issue. Additionally, a public records request for a list of Maricopa County provisional ballot recipients was satisfied after the trial. This may allow us to identify disenfranchised voters. La Sota also included witness testimony from his Kari Lake trial for a failed gubernatorial candidate. In this trial, allegations were made that thousands of ballots were rejected by the counters due to improperly timing his marks printed on the ballots.
But Dannemann said none of it was actual evidence that would change the outcome of the race, and Hamede unfairly asked the judge to extrapolate conclusions from various speculations.
In fact, what Hamade quoted confirms Mayes’ victory, Dannemann said: The recount found no discrepancies in any other county, and the Pinal county issue narrowed the margins, but it still made the final She added that the information provided by Lake’s trial was available and widely publicized at least two full days before Hamade’s own trial. A request for public records was fulfilled by Maricopa County after his trial due to delays in filing. Record in November as early as possible.
“Most of the plaintiff’s ‘newly discovered evidence’ is not new, and none of it … will change the outcome in a new trial,” Dannemann said.
Danemann concluded by asking the judge to dismiss Hamade’s request for a retrial, saying that proceeding with it would be detrimental to Mays as he attempts to fulfill the duties of his new role. For the voters who put Mays in office. Instead, she wrote that the court should punish Hamade. Mays sanctioned him and demanded that he pay legal costs — Including the costs of responding to his petition for a new trial.
“In the end (and I hope that’s the end of it), the plaintiff should not have filed this claim,” Dannemann wrote. should be acknowledged.”
Hamade’s challenge to the midterm election results is not the only one the courts are still hearing, almost two months after the election ended.lake Continues to seek an appeal against her own failed bid for the governor’s officefiled with both the state Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, asking the Court of Appeals to turn the case up. Supreme Court rebuts, directing lower courts to appeal and the appeals court He is scheduled to hear arguments in the lawsuit on February 1..
