A Maricopa County Superior Court Judge today refused to deny Kari Lake’s public records bid for access to ballot affidavit envelopes.

Maricopa County argued that signatures on ballot affidavits were part of the voter registration record and were therefore kept confidential by state law, with some elective exceptions that Lake claimed county attorneys failed to meet. .

Judge John Hanna argued that while ballot affidavit envelopes are not required to be incorporated into voter registration records and are not defined in law, they are common practice among county registrars. rejected.

Hanna ruled in court, saying the court “doesn’t have to follow how election officials have historically interpreted it.” He said he had “no objection” to the interpretation, but said he could not agree.

“I’m not sure if the ballot affidavit is a voter registration record,” Hannah said. “While this is a record from which election officials derive information that becomes part of the voter registration record, it does not mean that the voting affidavit itself is a voter registration record.”

Hannah instead ordered the parties to sue under the Public Records Act. This means the county must argue that the release of records violates its privacy interests or is contrary to the state’s best interests.

In today’s oral argument, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Senior Election Attorney Joseph LaRue heard the county’s argument against record disclosure.

The county acknowledges that ballot affidavit envelopes are a public record, but claims it has “some” vested interests in keeping records confidential.

He said the county aims to “protect the integrity of the election” because public disclosure of voter signatures could open up the possibility of ballot envelope counterfeiting and fraud.

“It’s going to take a little work. It’s not easy, but it might be possible,” Lalou said.

He also said the possibility of someone’s signature being made public could discourage voter registration.

Mr Larue said voters “have the right to privacy regarding sensitive information”. And it should not be revealed by the government.

He also spoke about keeping records confidential under the original controversial statute that keeps voter registration records confidential with a few exceptions.

Mr. LaRue said that the signature of the ballot affidavit is part of the voter registration record because the election procedure manual is kept with the county recorder, and that “the signature of the voter’s affidavit is scanned and signed. You can update your signature in your voter record by uploading an image of it to your voter record.”

However, the provisions of the EPM specifically deal with in-person early voting. LaRue argued county attorneys in the state interpreted “May” as a power to include all early ballot envelopes with “consistent” signatures incorporated into the registration record. .

He also relies on a 2019 statutory wording change that changed the Signature Verification Act from “compare to voter registration forms” to “voter registration records,” in line with practice by county registrars.

And in this case, Lake would not meet the statutory exception. He said the campaign’s objectives were “clearly the most realistic sort” given Mr. Lake’s campaign.

But given the inability to provide new evidence on appeal and the laws governing discovery in such cases, the county still considered Lake’s campaign over.

Lake’s attorney, Brian Brem, argued that Lake’s campaign was far from over, and so claimed.

“We respect your honor and verification of your signature is still under consideration,” Brem said.

He argued that the signature on the envelope was not part of the voter registration record and was therefore a public record.

Mr. Brehm then pulled out an image of the affidavit signature on the ballot, at which point Mr. Laloux called it a sixth-degree felony to distribute signatures under the law in question and asked for it to be removed. .

The court then sounded reminiscent of Lake’s second trial in May, as Brem said the county was trying to “cover up” election fraud by not verifying signatures. He saw a video of a signature verification worker quickly clicking a signature.

Brehm also pointed out that signatures are part of public commerce and are easily accessible to the public regarding deeds, mortgages and trusts.

Mr. Brehm said the signature “is our identity. And in every election, Your Excellency, these represent our most basic and fundamental rights as free people. This is the identity of this person.” That’s their identity, just 100% blue, and there’s no law that says they have the right to shove that public record into voter registration records and hide it from the public.”

So Hannah asked Brem, “If it’s someone’s identity, maybe some people don’t want to spread it around the world.”

Brehm said that’s a question for another day.

Hannah also agreed with the verdict. He directed county attorneys to file a response against Mr. Brem and instructed the parties to request a situational consultation or prepare a case management statement to set a further date.

Hannah also noted the potential need for an evidence hearing and foretold future appeals.

“I tend to think that it needs to happen here so that the courts, who will inevitably review my conduct, will have a record that they will be happy to resort to one way or the other.” he said.

r