They also noted that, given more time, there were enough situations in which the tallyers reported “undervoting” in the Attorney General race – essentially voters skipping the race. It could have been proven, but claims that the investigation never took place. A ballot will show that people have indeed made a choice. And considering Hamade’s lead over Mays among voters on Election Day, it could more than make up for Hamade’s 280-vote deficit, they say.

But Hamade and his attorneys also accused then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs of inadequate detention until six days after the trial that recounts in Pinal County showed discrepancies in totals. They also allege information that could have provided evidence that they hoped the judge would conclude that they acted unfairly. Her lawyers argued that the trial was inadequate, calling the hearing a “farce”.

“That statement is at best reckless and at worst deceptive,” they said before the High Court.

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge issued an order barring the release of county recounts until full statewide results are available. However, Mr. Hamade argued that this only barred county officials from providing information and did not apply to Mr. Hobbes, the defendant in the case based on his position as secretary of state.

“No authority permits the Chief Defendant to violate his duty of good faith to the court and conceal facts that justify petitioners’ allegations while at the same time falsely alleging that petitioners have no evidence. ,” the legal document states.

The Republican candidate’s defense team also lashed out at Maricopa County, which is also party to the lawsuit, saying it was slow to provide access to timely ballots, while the judge argued: Overrules his objections and confirms Mays as Attorney General.

“State and county officials have used government powers and funds to gain effective positions in election campaigns, withholding public records and withholding information that supports vote-counting issues raised by petitioners in court. By doing so, they positively tipped the scales of justice,” they said.

Many of Mr. Hamade’s proposals to judges are based on the argument that, given enough time, he can prove himself superior to Mr. Mays.

Prior to the first trial, Mr. Hamade’s legal team was given permission to inspect about 2,300 ballots from Maricopa County.

Of these, the judge acknowledged that 14 ballots had been submitted that could raise questions about whether the votes should be counted, regardless of whether it was Mr. Hamade or Mr. Mays. These were ballots that were not clearly marked.

But Jantzen said that wasn’t enough to determine that the county election officials who manually checked the ballots had committed some kind of fraud.

“Most likely, these 14 ballots were not filled out as instructed, which would be an error in voting,” the judge said.

Even Tim La Sota, who was in charge of the hearing, conceded that even those miscalculations still couldn’t overcome the 511-vote difference that Hamade lost statewide to Mays at the time.

But La Sota said it might have been different if the judge had allowed more ballots from Maricopa, Pima and Navajo counties to be examined. But Jantzen said the demands were beyond what the campaign would allow, which needed to be resolved quickly.

The race was so close that a statewide recount was required. And while the change in most counties was small, it wasn’t in Pinal County, where the survey produced 507 ballots that weren’t initially counted.

Hamade won 392 of those, while Mays won 115. But even that wasn’t enough to change the outcome.

If information about Pinal County’s recount was known before the trial, lawyers could argue for an investigation of more than 68,000 other ballots statewide that were “under-voted” in the Attorney General election. He could have, he claims. In other words, the tally machine found that voters didn’t make a choice in that election, even though they had picked candidates in other contests.

Then there is the question of whether some ballots cast on Election Day were not counted at all because they were shown not to be properly registered in county records.

Hamade blames a computer problem he claims some voters re-registered at different addresses “where there is some connection” without voter knowledge or consent.

More than 1,100 votes were affected, according to his lawyers. And given that Hamade outperformed among voters on Election Day compared to early voting that went to Mays, Hamade actually entered the race with a margin of more than 150 votes. They should know they won, they said.

But Hamade said Jantzen’s ruling that the election lawsuit schedule prevented wider disclosure prevented him from finding and presenting that evidence at trial. So he is asking the Supreme Court to rule that these time limits are illegal because they prevent the right to inspect more than a random sample of ballots.

Hamade said all of this was enough for the judges to order a new trial, giving them enough time to obtain evidence they believed would overturn the outcome.

It’s unclear how quickly the judge will act. The application is an opportunity to get responses not only from Mayes’ attorneys, but also from the Office of the Secretary of State and Maricopa County attorneys.