Friday, December 11, 2020

BREAKING: AZGOP Chair Ward Challenging Constitutionality of Electoral Count Act's Safe Harbor Date In SCOTUS, Attorney Tells AZ Law

UPDATE, 10:55am: Attorneys for Kelli Ward have now filed their U.S. Supreme Court Petition (for a Writ of Certiorari) and have asked for expedited consideration. As promised in the original article below, she is challenging both the constitutionality of the Safe Harbor date in the Electoral Count Act and the due process violation which she alleges occurred as a result of the fast-tracked state court process.

In this case, the discovery schedule was severely curtailed due to the perceived “deadlines” imposed by the Electoral Count Act. Petitioner therefore asks the Court to declare the Electoral Count Act deadlines unconstitutional as applied to state court litigation, and to reverse and remand this case to the lower courts to proceed in a manner not inconsistent with this Court’s Opinion. The lower courts should be given to decide whether Petitioner should be granted additional time for inspection of ballots, without regard for the Electoral Count Act deadlines.

Here is what they have filed:

Arizona SCOTUS Challenge - Petition for Writ -Ward v. Jackson, Et Al by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

Arizona SCOTUS Challenge - Motion to Expedite Ward v. Jackson by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

Original article, 10:20am: BREAKING: AZGOP Chair Ward Challenging Constitutionality of Electoral Count Act's Safe Harbor Date In SCOTUS, Attorney Tells AZ Law

 Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward is excited to be bringing one of her election challenges to the U.S. Supreme Court today. Although yesterday, she announced it would be the Arizona Kraken challenge in federal court, it is actually the Election Contest that she (alone) had filed in State Court.

Ward is going to challenge the constitutionality of the federal law that establishes the Safe Harbor deadline that passed on Tuesday.

That contest was the one where Superior Court Judge Randall Warner allowed the parties to first review 100 duplicated ballots in Maricopa County and the parties then agreed to review additional. (They also reviewed 100 signature envelopes.)

Judge Warner then ruled that insufficient evidence had been presented to change the results of Arizona's Presidential election, and the conservative Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirmed this past Tuesday.

The U.S. Supreme Court appeal will be based upon a violation of due process, according to Ward. Ward's attorney, Jack Wilenchik, explained to AZ Law that the "Petition asks the Court to resolve the crucial issue of whether state courts are bound by the Electoral Count Act’s “deadlines” when resolving state-court litigation, given that Constitution does not expressly grant such authority to Congress. This question has obvious significance in light of the extensive state-court litigation over the presidential election this cycle."

Ward's daily video explains it further, saying she was denied due process because the judge set "unrealistic deadlines" under the incorrect assumption that he had to make a decision and leave the AZ Supreme Court time before the Safe Harbor date.

The Safe Harbor date in the Electoral Count Act is not a "drop-dead" deadline by which the results must be certified and all litigation must be completed. Rather, it is a date that, IF MET, means that Congress CANNOT CHALLENGE the state's electoral slate when it meets to confirm the Electoral College vote on January 6. 

[National election law expert Prof. Rick Hasen responded to this article with a tweet decrying the premise of Ward's Supreme Court Petition, saying "People ask me when the litigation is going to stop. I say perhaps not through the entire Biden presidency. But when will the serious litigation stop? It already has."]


The petition to try to convince the Supreme Court to review Arizona Supreme Court decision will be filed later today - the highest court in the land does not offer electronic filing.

Other current Arizona-related election news from AZ Law:

--ONE MINI-SURPRISE: 2 Of AZ's U.S. Representatives and a Baker's Dozen AZ State Lawmakers Urging SCOTUS To Hear Texas' Trump Case; AZAG Brnovich Walks the Line

--NEW: U.S. Supreme Court To Consider Arizona Election Case TOMORROW; No, Not THAT One, the One Allowing Gov. Ducey To Appoint Kyl/McSally For 2+ Years Before Special Election

"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 podcast.

2 comments:

  1. Did Ward even raise federal constitutional issues in the AZ state court proceeding? if not, that could be a problem (among many) in getting SCOTUS to take a look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it was strictly a challenge under Arizona's statutory Election Contest law.

      Howeverrrrrr, she *did* raise it in the federal case that she is a co-plaintiff in! Maybe she can consolidate! ;-)

      Delete

BREAKING: Judge Rules In Favor of Arizona's Early Voting Signature Verification Process and Drop Box Provisions

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club took their complaints about Arizona's processes for comparing early voting signatures and unstaffed dro...