A state appeals court found lawsuits filed by Arizona Republicans after the 2020 election to be baseless and malicious, upholding a ruling that ordered the party to pay more than $18,000 in legal fees. .

In a ruling late Thursday, the Maricopa County Superior Court rejected a request by the Republican Party that a legally mandated post-election ballot count audit should be conducted by borough. said Judge John Hannah Jr. was correct.

Appellate Judge Michael Brown said it was clear that the election procedure manual specifically authorized Maricopa County to use vote centers. This will allow residents to vote anywhere, not just on their home premises.

The legally enforceable manual was produced by the Office of the Secretary of State and was approved by both then-Governors in 2019. Doug Ducey and then-Attorney General Mark Brunovich.

Brown also said that even if Republicans think the manual violates state law, the time to sue is before the election. Instead, he noted, the party went to court not only after the election (where Joe Biden beat Donald Trump for president), but also after the audit was completed.

But the judges didn’t just ignore the party’s appeals.

They agreed with Hannah’s opinion that the lawsuit was not only baseless, but was maliciously prosecuted. And this would make the party liable to the Office of the Secretary of State for the $18,238 in litigation costs it had already accumulated, but also for the additional costs incurred in dealing with the appeal. , they said.

A party spokesman said Republicans were “surprised by the court’s decision” and planned to meet with lawyers to decide what further steps to take.

The problem stems from the legally mandated random ballot tally. In this procedure, representatives from both parties select batches of ballots and the races in those ballots, then determine whether what the machine tallies matches what the human concludes.

Concordance was 100% in all cases.

But Republican leader Jack Willenczyk denounced the law as requiring audits to be conducted on 2% of the voting precinct.

The only problem is that Maricopa County and six other counties use Vote Centers where anyone can go to vote. Therefore, audits were conducted in 2% of these vote centers. Wilenczyk tried to block the official announcement of the election results, claiming it was illegal.

But Hannah said in the 2021 ruling that when Congress authorized counties to set up vote centers, it also gave the secretary of state the power to authorize audits in that manner through official election procedure manuals.

Then there was the issue of timing. The judge said it was “inexcusable” that the party filed the lawsuit three days after Maricopa County released its handcount results.

But what really provoked Hannah’s fury, and it was Hannah’s decision to order the party to pay legal fees set up by a private attorney hired by then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, was “after this election. Public distrust was the motive for this lawsuit,” the party admitted.

“Plaintiffs have effectively conceded that this action was brought primarily for improper purposes,” the judge wrote.

“I claim to have filed this lawsuit for political reasons,” he continued. “‘Public mistrust’ is a political issue, not a legal or factual basis for litigation.”

And the evidence shows that the party has filed utterly nonsensical lawsuits aimed solely at undermining public confidence in the 2020 general election, and how the party will resolve its legal issues in an attempt to evade these costs. He even accused the party of “gaslighting” for trying to frame it.

Hannah said it was clear from the outset that there was no legal basis for the party and its attorneys to require a different kind of ballot audit than what is required by state law.

“This statement shows plaintiff’s legal position to be unfounded because it is wholly wrong as a matter of law,” the judge said in his ruling.

And there was another thing that bothered Hannah. That was the action taken by Republicans after handcounts were completed and electronic counting was said to have shown perfection.

“At that point, plaintiffs could have quietly walked away from the case and released the audit results to reassure the public,” Hannah said. “Instead, I filed a petition to stop me from participating in the campaign.”

The judge was particularly furious when Wilentick suggested that paying Hobbes for attorneys’ fees would, in Hannah’s words, “make the public question the fairness of the courts and undermine respect for them.” .

“It’s a threat to the rule of law disguised as an expression of concern,” the judge said. “It’s direct evidence of malice.”

Hannah needed to give the party another legal basis. It claims to be exercising a First Amendment right.

“The First Amendment does not give litigants the right to bring and maintain frivolous lawsuits,” he wrote.

r