Monday, February 26, 2024

Arizona one of 8 states joining U.S. FTC in suing to block Kroger (Fry's)/Albertson's-Safeway merger

 Arizona AG Kris Mayes, the FTC and several other states are suing to BLOCK the Fry's (Kroger)/Safeway-Albertson's merger.

The case has been filed in federal court in Oregon. The state of Washington already filed their own case to block it, and the Pac NW also has a big overlap between Kroger and Albertson's/Safeway - like AZ.

The FTC and AZ allege that the proposed Kroger/Albertson's merger would create grocery monopolies in: Flagstaff; LHC-Kingman; Payson, Phx-Mesa-Chandler; Prescott Valley-Prescott; Sierra Vista-Douglas; Tucson; Yuma.

Also, AZ is 1 of 15 states where both are UFCW workplaces. The allegations about the unionization are that the merger will allow them to offer lower wages/worse packages to the union.  

The companies have agreed to a TRO, keeping the merger from closing until there's a ruling.

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Monday, February 19, 2024

BREAKING: Trump and Lake Allies Expand Elections Lawsuit Against Maricopa County; 3 COCONINO County Practices Now Under Attack (READ Amended Complaint)

Allies of Kari Lake and Donald Trump have expanded their latest elections lawsuit against Maricopa County, adding heavily Democratic Coconino County.


The lawsuit filed by Trump-allied America First Legal on behalf of Lake-allied Strong Communities Foundation was filed earlier this month to relitigate several of the issues Maricopa County has been attacked for during the 2022 elections, and hoping to change some of them for 2024.

At a Thursday hearing, attorneys (James Rogers and Jennifer Wright) told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman that they would file an Amended Complaint later that day to add Coconino County. Arizona's Law has confirmed that it was filed and has acquired that new document (not yet on the docket, below). 

It accuses the northern Arizona county - which includes Flagstaff and a sizable portion of the Navajo Nation - of also improperly cancelling voter's registrations and phone-curing early ballots, as well as allowing unstaffed ballot drop boxes. (The lawsuit also accuses Maricopa County of all of these.)

Drop boxes for early ballots has become a flash point for disagreements, and this case could help iron that out. Arizona statutes do not set forth restrictions on how or where counties can set up drop boxes. The Amended Complaint utilizes the law prohibiting so-called "ballot harvesting" to suggest that counties must have someone standing next to the drop box at all times.*

They head to the dictionary for the definition of "staffed", and then have to look at "unstaffed." Their conclusion: "Thus, whenever “elections officials” are not present, a drop box is not “staffed,” and providing such a drop box is a class 5 felony. Accordingly, the Defendants’ providing of unstaffed drop boxes is unlawful. Indeed, doing so is a crime."

The lack of statutory clarity and the changes in explanations provided by the old and new versions of the Elections Procedures Manual did lead Coconino County Recorder Patty Hansen to tell Votebeat reporter Jen Fifield "Holy cow!" Hansen and the other County Recorders were later assured by State Elections Director Colleen Connor that the drop boxes could be unstaffed as long as they are secured.

This lawsuit could test that interpretation, as well as counties' interpretations/procedures on calling voters to cure their early ballot signature issues and cancelling voters' registrations if there is an inter-county address change reported by ADOT.

The parties are also fighting on whether the case should be heard in Maricopa County or somewhere else. The plaintiffs filed there, but quickly asked it to be moved to Yavapai County - which they believe will be more friendly to Republican interests. 

Maricopa County plans to ask the judge to dismiss them from the case as incorrect parties. If that is unsuccessful, they would like the court either keep the case in Phoenix or move it to Pima County.

Judge Adleman repeatedly noted that there are "multiple layers of chicken and egg issues" before he and the attorneys agreed to first address the Motion to Dismiss (to be filed by Wednesday), then (if necessary) the venue, and then (if necessary) a motion by Democratic-allied groups to intervene.

Strong Communities was started and is run by Merissa Hamilton. U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake has tapped Hamilton to head up a significant part of her campaign - getting Lake supporters to return their early ballots.

An interesting side note: Maricopa County has their usual crack in-house team of elections-focused attorneys on the case, but has also retained the services of Snell & Wilmer's Brett Johnson. Johnson and his team typically represent Republican-related interests.

*The anti-"harvesting" provision differentiates between a drop box that a private person or group might set up and one that is "established and staffed by election officials" (A.R.S. §16-1005(E))

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Friday, February 16, 2024

BREAKING: No Labels Asks Judge For $160,000 Attorneys' Fees From Arizona Secretary of State In Suit To Stop Rogue No Labels Candidates

The No Labels party may have failed today in their effort to recruit Joe Manchin to run for President, but they also asked a federal judge this afternoon to order Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to reimburse them for $160,000 in attorneys' fees.

The request was filed late this afternoon in federal court in a case where they successfully prevented Arizonans from getting on the November ballot as No Labels candidates. Three candidates had already filed Statements of Interest for the U.S. Senate seat, a Congressional race and a State House contest.

Attorneys for Fontes unsuccessfully argued that once No Labels became a recognized political party in Arizona, they had to abide by the same statutes as the Democratic and Republican parties by allowing party members to run for any office on the ballot. 

Judge John Tuchi agreed that Fontes' office did not violate the statutes by accepting the Statements of Interest, but that No Labels still had a constitutional right to ONLY run candidates for the Presidency.

The Secretary of State has appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit, but Judge Tuchi this week refused to stay his decision in the interim.

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Wednesday, February 7, 2024

NEW, UPDATE: Kari Lake AMENDS Financial Disclosure Statement To Add Trust; No Indication It's To Protect Assets From Richer

There was plenty of coverage* of the new financial disclosure statement filed with the U.S. Senate by Kari Lake. And that reporting may have prompted Lake to file her (first) AMENDED statement this past weekend.

Instead of owning ZenVideo, LLC as wife and husband, Lake and Jeffrey Halperin (her husband) actually own it - estimated to be worth between $100,000 to $250,000 - as part of their living trust.

The video production company has not earned Lake any income during the past year-plus (per the disclosure statement), and it does not appear that Lake either recently placed it in the trust nor placed it there with the intent to protect the assets from creditors. Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer recently filed a defamation lawsuit against Lake regarding her statements about the elections.

The trust appears to be the type of living trust which would not be protected from judgment enforcement. Lake and her husband placed two pieces of real property into the trust in late 2021, and those documents indicate that the trust is revocable and that they are the beneficiaries. People often use such trusts as part of their estate planning.

Those properties appear to be their home and a condominium, both in the Biltmore area. While a personal home is not required to be listed in the Senate's disclosure statements, Lake does list a rental condo that she is receiving rent of between $1,250-4,165 per month. (The disclosure statement does not list it as a trust asset, and that might require a second amendment.)

(POSTSCRIPT: As noted, Lake lists the condo as being worth between $100-250,000. The Maricopa County Assessor's most recent "full cash value" - which is typically lower than market value - as $273,300.)

*First reported by Brahm Resnik, Channel 12.

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Tuesday, January 16, 2024

ON OUR SISTER SITE: George Santos Treasurer(?) Hiding Out After Embezzling $50,000 From Arizona Congressional Candidate

Since campaign finance laws - and criminal laws - are implicated, we are cross-posting this Arizona's Politics article here. Arizona's Politics is an older sister site to Arizona's Law. Please head over there to read the rest of the article and to review the FEC filing.

*****

A one-time Treasurer(?) for fraudster/expelled Congressman George Santos is apparently hiding from law enforcement after being accused of embezzling at least $50,000 from an Arizona Congressional candidate.

Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake), who is currently running to regain a seat in the Arizona Legislature, leveled the charges in a letter filed with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") on Sunday afternoon.

(To read the rest of the article, click here)

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 


AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.


Friday, January 12, 2024

BREAKING: Ann Timmer will become the next Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court on July 1

Ann Timmer will become the next Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court on July 1, upon the expiration of Justice Robert Brutinel's 5-year term.

Timmer, appointed in 2012 by then Governor Jan Brewer (R), has been the Vice Chief Justice since 2019. Taking her place will be Justice John Lopez.

Interestingly, Justice Clint Bolick declined the Vice Chief Justice role, on the grounds that he would then be unable to succeed Timmer as Chief Justice because of Arizona's mandatory retirement age for judges (70).

Timmer has her undergraduate degree from the U of A and her law degree from ASU.

(Arizona's Law interviewed Justice Brutinel soon after he assumed the responsibility, and will look to do both an exit interview with him and an incoming interview with Justice Timmer. Stay tuned.)

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 


AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Friday, January 5, 2024

UPDATE: Tom Horne STRIKES OUT On Demanding Jury Trial To Defend Arizona's Law Banning Transgender Girls From Playing On Girls' Teams

Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne has lost another ruling in his effort to defend Arizona's law banning transgender girls from competing on girls' teams in schools. 

Horne demanded a jury trial. The girls challenging the law objected. Horne countered by asking for an "advisory jury", saying that citizens "would not make the same factual errors that the Court has made in its ruling on the preliminary injunction" (as the judge summarized).

U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps took issue with Horne's characterization of her ruling - which is currently on appeal and scheduled for oral arguments in front of a 9th Circuit panel in March - and ruled today against any jury in the case.

And, although jurors provide a valuable service in finding facts and applying the law in many cases, Defendant Horne’s reference to the advisory jury as “the effected community” suggests that he seeks advisory jurors whose personal beliefs about the propriety of A.R.S. § 15-120.02 might color their determination of the factual issues. Whether A.R.S. § 15-120.02 is constitutional, or whether A.R.S. § 15-120.02 violates laws enacted by Congress, are not issues to be determined by popular vote.

Tom Horne, GOP legislative leaders Ben Toma and Warren Petersen, and "USA Women of Action"/"America First Legal" are all trying to defend the constitutionality of the 2022 law

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 


AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Wednesday, December 20, 2023

BREAKING UPDATE: Kari Lake Convinces AZ Supreme Court To Grant Brief STAY In Stephen Richer Defamation Proceeding

UPDATE, 1/17, 8:30am: "BREAKING UPDATE: Kari Lake Convinces AZ Supreme Court To Grant Brief STAY In Stephen Richer Defamation Proceeding"

The Arizona Supreme Court granted Kari Lake a temporary stay in the defamation case filed against her by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer. 

In an Order issued late yesterday, the Court emphasized that the stay was only a short-term measure while they consider whether to accept Lake's appeal of a decision that the case not be dismissed at the earliest stage. They gave Richer three weeks (Feb. 6) to respond to Lake's Petition for Review.

"IT IS ORDERED that proceedings in the superior court are stayed for the limited purpose of obtaining a response to the Petition for Review."

This puts a halt to discovery and planned depositions, something Lake has been pushing for at every court level.

Lake is represented before the Supreme Court by private attorneys Jennifer Wright and Tim LaSota, as well as ASU Law's First Amendment Clinic.

**********

UPDATE, 1/10, 11am: "BREAKING: Kari Lake's Special Action Appeal In Stephen Richer Defamation Immediately DISMISSED By Appeals Court"

Arizona's Law has received confirmation that, without giving Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer an opportunity to oppose it, the Court of Appeals today DISMISSED the Special Action appeal filed last week by Kari Lake. 

Lake was challenging the trial judge's refusal to dismiss Richer's lawsuit claiming Lake repeatedly defamed him with false attacks about the 2022 elections process. The appellate judges refused to accept jurisdiction of the Special Action, and the case will continue at the trial court level.

*****

UPDATE, 1/5, 11am: "UPDATE: Kari Lake Files Special Action Appeal Challenging Judge's Refusal To Dismiss Stephen Richer's Defamation Case Against Her"

(11:45am: Special Action Petition added.)

Kari Lake and her fundraising committee have filed a Special Action appeal challenging last month's decision to proceed with Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer's defamation case.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman DENIED Lake's twin Motions to Dismiss on December 20 (below), permitting the case to move forward. The new appeal challenges Adleman's conclusions on both motions. Although we have not yet seen the Special Action Petition, ASU Law School's First Amendment Clinic is listed as co-representing Lake. That indicates that she Lake is challenging the denial of the anti-SLAPP Motion, as well as the denial of her Motion claiming that Richer has no way of succeeding in the defamation action.

On the anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") decision, the ASU Law School's First Amendment Clinic (continues to) claim that the burden shifts to Richer to prove that he is not simply trying to stifle Lake's campaign rhetoric simply because he has filed a defamation case, "particularly in the context of a political campaign". Judge Adleman rejected that argument.

On the other Motion to Dismiss, Lake argues that her comments attacking Richer are protected by the First Amendment and were "substantially true". (She states that he should resign if he cannot handle her criticisms.) She attempts to get around the issue that those are defenses to be brought up later in a case by noting that she had offered other documents and that Richer had his chance when the judge in her failed Election Contest refused to grant sanctions against Lake.

The deadline for Richer to respond to the Petition is January 18.

(We will update this once we have received and reviewed the Special Action Petition.)

*******

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Wednesday, December 13, 2023

BREAKING: FAREWELL, DAN MCCAULEY: Finchem's I'm-Old-So-I-Don't-Care-If-I'm-Disbarred Attorney Is Relieved Of His Duties In Election Contest Appeal

UPDATE, 12/20, 4:45pm: "FAREWELL, DAN MCCAULEY: Finchem's I'm-Old-So-I-Don't-Care-If-I'm-Disbarred Attorney Is Relieved Of His Duties In Election Contest Appeal; Oral Argument Vacated, But No Extension"

The Court of Appeals again wasted no time in rejecting Mark Finchem's latest effort to delay his 2022 Election Contest appeal. Dan McCauley, his attorney who famously told the trial judge that he took the case because he was ready to retire (even involuntarily) is now off the case.

However, the judges vacated the oral arguments scheduled for January 31 and said they would proceed to conference and proceed with the opinion process at that point... unless Finchem's new counsel convinces them otherwise.
***********
UPDATE, 12/19, 2pm: "BREAKING: IF AT FIRST... - Mark Finchem Tries Again To Get His, Uh, Disciplined Attorney Out Of His 2022 Election Contest Appeal"

It took Court of Appeals judges just one day last week to reject efforts by Mark Finchem's attorney to withdraw from the Election Contest appeal and to set the calendar back by more than a year. He has refiled the requests with a bit more detail, and that might be enough to partly succeed.

Last week's effort (below) from attorney Dan McCauley simply stated that the requests were because of a finding by the State Bar in his disciplinary proceeding. That was too vague for either Defendant Adrian Fontes or the appellate judges.

This week's efforts (below) note that the attorney who represented McCauley in the disciplinary proceeding believed that a conflict of interest existed between McCauley and Finchem, and that the briefs should be withdrawn. McCauley includes a statement from Mark Finchem, as well.

Fontes's counsel (Craig Morgan) has responded, indicating that the additional information supports McCauley's withdrawal. However, he argues to the judges that they should not give Finchem four months to find new counsel and then re-brief the appeal. 

Alternatively, he argues, Finchem should be responsible for reimbursing Fontes for the attorneys' fees associated with the initial briefing (if there will be new briefs required).

Oral arguments in this long-languishing appeal - which (currently) focuses solely on the $48,000 in sanctions assessed by the trial court - are scheduled for January 31.

**********
UPDATE, 5:15pm: "Mark Finchem's Attorney SETTLES Bar Disciplinary case before Jan. 17 hearing"

The State Bar of Arizona has told Arizona's Law that Daniel McCauley has settled the Bar's disciplinary Complaint against him. Although they would not divulge the terms of the settlement, it is apparent that McCauley (and his attorney) believe that withdrawing from the ongoing appeal of the sanctions against both him and (his client) Mark Finchem was necessary.

Adrian Fontes objected to McCauley's withdrawal partly based upon the failure to elaborate on the Bar's finding. Below is the Bar's Complaint filed in August, McCauley's Answer filed in October, and the Notice of Settlement.

The Bar's proceeding against McCauley was scheduled to go before a judge on January 17.

The Bar's Complaint goes point by point through the Election Contest allegations McCauley presented to the judge last year, noting which ones he knew or should have known were false.

Today's news comes one day after the Washington Post reported that similar Complaints are pending against Kari Lake attorneys Bryan Blehm, Kurt Olsen and Andrew Parker.
***********
ORIGINAL ARTICLE, 12/13 at 4:45pm: "BREAKING: Court REJECTS Mark Finchem's Attorney's Effort To Escape The Election Contest Sanctions Appeal Because Of State Bar Disciplinary Action"

Mark Finchem's ready-to-be-disbarred-because-I'm-old attorney, Daniel McCauley, tried to use the disciplinary proceeding to escape from his appeal of the $48,000 in sanctions AND reset the appeal back to square one. The Court of Appeals swiftly rejected the effort.

Yesterday, McCauley asked to withdraw from the appeal and to cancel the briefs he had already filed in the election contest case. He noted that it was because of the "finding by the State Bar of Arizona, in PDJ 2023-9064". However, he did not elaborate on what the finding was that caused a conflict between him and his client.

McCauley famously told the trial judge in the case that he represented Finchem because he was ready to retire and was thus less concerned about the State Bar disbarring him.

Defendant Adrian Fontes, who defeated Finchem in the 2022 election for Secretary of State, opposed the Emergency Withdrawal. He explained to the court that it would be inappropriate to send the appeal process back to day one, when oral argument was already scheduled for January 31, 2024.

The Court of Appeals agreed. Today, they rejected Finchem's motions and stated that they did not comply with court rules.

Arizona's Law has requested the State Bar's finding against McCauley and will update as warranted.

 

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thursday, November 30, 2023

BREAKING: Kari Lake's Lawsuit To Get Ballot Envelopes Fails; "Her Goose Failed To Lay The (Golden) Egg She Expected" (READ Minute Entry)

Kari Lake does not have the right to get Maricopa County early voters' ballot affidavit envelopes with their signatures, a judge ruled today.

After an unusual two day public records request trial in September, Superior Court Judge John Hannah waited until the end of his 60 days to issue his opinion. The 12-page Minute Entry (below) explains why he concluded that Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer was correct in denying Lake's PRR for the envelopes.

Hannah indicated that he had earlier denied the County's Motion to Dismiss the Special Action lawsuit because the parties had not clearly defined whether the envelopes that voters sign to indicate that they had legally voted the ballot inside were part of the "voter registration record".

Having now considered the matter further, the Court concludes that the Recorder correctly relied on section 16-168(F) as a basis for refusing to disclose the ballot affidavit envelopes. As a matter of law, section 16-168(F) presumptively forecloses wholesale disclosure of the ballot affidavit envelopes to Ms. Lake because they are “records containing a voter’s signature,” and because the Recorder in fact makes them part of the “voter registration record” and uses them for signature verification in subsequent elections.

Hannah also curtly disposed of Lake's attorneys' (Bryan Blehm and Kurt Olsen) argument that they needed the envelopes as part of their ongoing legal challenge to the results of the 2022 gubernatorial election. The Minute Entry notes that that case is well beyond the trial and evidence-gathering phases - it is on appeal - and, importantly, that they had not even argued that Maricopa County had erroneously verified an early ballot through a bad signature match. Instead, Lake had claimed the County did not do any signature matching. "That argument failed. She does not get to start over with a different argument now."

In a memorable conclusion to the Minute Entry, Judge Hannah went back to Aesop's Fables for an analogy.


 

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Arizona one of 8 states joining U.S. FTC in suing to block Kroger (Fry's)/Albertson's-Safeway merger

 Arizona AG Kris Mayes, the FTC and several other states are suing to BLOCK the Fry's (Kroger)/Safeway-Albertson's merger. The case ...